Plaintiff v. Adams

14 Citing cases

  1. Winn v. Zuniga

    2:22-CV-0706-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2024)

    In support of this request, Defendant cites two cases where the District Court ordered redaction of identifying information before requiring production. See id.; Ramirez v. Gutierrez No. 20-cv-1109-MMA (BLM), 2021 WL 4776332, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021) (citing Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010).

  2. Smith v. Colliflower

    Civil Action CCB-17-3232 (D. Md. Apr. 28, 2023)

    Courts in similar civil rights cases had no trouble finding complaints and grievances against defendant government officers alleging similar violations within the broad scope of relevance for purposes of discovery. See Martin v. Conner, 287 F.R.D. 348, 352 (D. Md. 2012); Roland v. Hill, No. 17-cv-6524, 2019 WL 1128842, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2019); Eusse v. Vitela, No. 3:13-cv-916, 2015 WL 9008634, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015); Douty v. Rubenstein, Civ. No. 2:13-32832, 2015 WL 4163093, at *5 (S.D.W.Va. July 9, 2015); Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-205, 2010 WL 4513405, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010).

  3. Richard v. Joseph

    2:21-cv-0975 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Defendants' privacy concerns regarding the grievances and complaints can be addressed with redaction of the identifying information. See Ramirez v. Gutierrez, 2021 WL 4776332, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021) (citing Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering redaction of the names of the inmates who filed grievances against correctional officer before documents were provided to plaintiff); Eusse v. Vitela, 2015 WL 9008634, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015) (noting defendants' privacy concerns and ordering that “the names and identifying information of the individuals who made the complaints, as well as other officers who were not involved in the incident, may be redacted.”); Thompson v. Morales, 2008 WL 413757, at *1 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2008) (“Privacy concerns, if any, may be addressed by redaction of names, CDC numbers, and other identifying information, should the defendants be required to produce documents responsive to this request.”). For the reasons set forth above, defendants' request that the grievances and complaints be withheld on the basis of a privacy concern is denied.

  4. Ramirez v. Gutierrez

    20-cv-1109-MMA(BLM) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021)   Cited 5 times

    If documents are ordered to be produced, Defendants' privacy concerns can be addressed with a protective order and/or the redaction of identifying information. See Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering redaction of the names of the inmates who filed grievances against correctional officer before documents were provided to plaintiff); see also Smith v. Kiesz, 2013 WL 1338927, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 3, 2013) (ordering defendant to produce documents from defendant's personnel file and noting that any documents disclosed were subject to a protective order that required defense counsel “to redact any and all identifying personal information which might pose a security risk if released, including, but not limited to, the defendant's home addresses, social security numbers, telephone numbers, etc.”); Eusse v. Vitela, 2015 WL 9008634, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015) (noting defendants' privacy concerns and ordering that “the names and identifying information of the individuals who made the complaints, as well as other officers who were not involved in the incident, may be redacted

  5. Jones v. Walinga

    1:19-cv-00396-DAD-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2021)

    To the extent Defendants are concerned about disclosure of the third-party inmates' identities in this production, the Court agrees that redaction of the inmates' identities is proper. Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SKO-PC, 2010 WL 4513405 *3 (E.D. Ca. Nov. 2, 2010). Indeed, the Court may limit the scope of discovery to protect the privacy interests of litigants and other third parties. Id.

  6. Moore v. Lankford

    Case No.: 19CV2406-DMS (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    If documents are ordered to be produced, Defendants' privacy concerns can be addressed with a protective order and/or the redaction of identifying information. See Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov.2, 2010) (ordering redaction of the names of the inmates who filed grievances against correctional officer before documents were provided to plaintiff); see also Smith v. Kiesz, 2013 WL 1338927, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 3, 2013) (ordering defendant to produce documents from defendant's personnel file and noting that any documents disclosed were subject to a protective order that required defense counsel "to redact any and all identifying personal information which might pose a security risk if released, including, but not limited to, the defendant's home addresses, social security numbers, telephone numbers, etc."); Eusse, 2015 WL 9008634 at *4 (noting defendants' privacy concerns and ordering that "the names and identifying information of the individuals who made the complaints, as well as other officers who were not involved in the incident, may be redacted."); and Thompson v. Morales, 2008 WL 413757, at *1 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2008) ("Privacy concerns, if any, may be addressed by redaction of

  7. Poindexter v. W.Va. Reg'l Jail Authority

    Case No. 3:18-cv-01511 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 17, 2020)

    Although relevant case law is are not plentiful, district courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and across the country, have allowed redactions of non-party prisoner names in discovery to protect their privacy and maintain institutional security. See, e.g., Lamarr v. Jackson, No. 3:14-CV-32, 2015 WL 2401390, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. May 20, 2015) (ordering defendants to produce the Use of Force Committee reports regarding excessive force at Huttonsville Correctional Center with redaction of prisoner identification); Scott v. Bennet, No. 3:18-CV-00583-FDW, 2020 WL 1249386, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2020) (ordering defendants to produce incident reports with the prisoners' identifying information redacted and subject to the existing protective order); Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09-CV-00205, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) ("The Court may limit the scope of discovery to protect the privacy interests of litigants and third parties. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34-35 (1984)).

  8. Thomsen v. Naphcare, Inc.

    Case No. 3:19-CV-00969-AC (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2020)

    (Mot., at 5.) In support of her arguments, Plaintiff cites Pitkin v. Corizon Health, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02233-AA, 2017 WL 6496565, at *5 (D. Or. Dec. 18, 2017), and Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09-cv-00205-LJO-SKO PC, 2010 WL 4513405, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010). Both cases are instructive here.

  9. Roettgen v. Foston

    Case No.: 13cv1101-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Denying Plaintiff's request to reconsider allowing the prisoners' names to be redacted in the discovery production

    Importantly, any invasion of the Defendants' privacy interests can be mitigated through a protective order (Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617) and by redacting sensitive information. See Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering redaction of the names of the inmates who filed grievances against correctional officer before documents were provided to plaintiff). These measures will greatly reduce the invasion of privacy that would occur with production of the documents at issue.

  10. Roettgen v. Foston

    Case No.: 13cv1101-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal. May. 4, 2016)

    Importantly, any invasion of the Defendants' privacy interests can be mitigated through a protective order (Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617) and by redacting sensitive information. See Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering redaction of the names of the inmates who filed grievances against correctional officer before documents were provided to plaintiff). These measures will greatly reduce the invasion of privacy that would occur with production of the documents at issue.