Opinion
2:21-cv-0975 KJN P
01-23-2023
CRAIG RICHARD, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The instant order addresses plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to produce Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) documents.
Background
On January 20, 2022, plaintiff moved to compel defendants to produce documents created during a PREA investigation conducted as a result of plaintiff's allegations against defendant Joseph. (ECF No. 27.) In support of the opposition to the motion to compel, defendants submitted the declaration of Litigation Coordinator Takehara addressing why the PREA investigation documents should not be disclosed to plaintiff. (ECF No. 28-2 at 19-26.) On April 27, 2022, the undersigned ordered defendants to submit the PREA investigation documents for in camera review. (ECF No. 35.)
On May 18, 2022, defendants submitted the PREA investigation documents for in camera review. After conducting an in camera review of the documents submitted on May 18, 2022, the undersigned denied plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure of these documents by order filed May 23, 2022. (ECF No. 41.)
On May 23, 2022, defendants submitted a more comprehensive set of PREA investigation documents. Defendants informed the court that they recently became aware of the more comprehensive set of PREA investigation documents. On July 27, 2022, the undersigned ordered defendants to resubmit the PREA investigation documents submitted May 23, 2022, with proposed redactions. (ECF No. 61.)
On or around August 17, 2022, defendants submitted the PREA investigation documents with proposed redactions. On November 1, 2022, the undersigned ordered defendants to submit a supplemental affidavit from the Litigation Coordinator or other appropriate official addressing the following proposed redactions: AGOOOOO41-54, 56, 66-72, 75, 76, except for the last two paragraphs, 78, 79. (ECF No. 70.) The undersigned also ordered defendants to clarify whether they sought redaction of AGOOOOO58. (Id.)
On November 18, 2022, defendants submitted proposed redactions of the documents discussed in the November 1, 2022 order and a supplemental declaration by Litigation Coordinator Takehara addressing the proposed redactions.
In his supplemental declaration, Litigation Coordinator Takehara clarifies that defendants do not seek redaction of AGOOOOO58.
Discussion
The undersigned conducted an in camera review of the entire packet of PREA documents submitted by defendants on May 23, 2022. The undersigned also reviewed the proposed redactions of the PREA documents submitted by defendants on August 17, 2022, as well as Litigation Coordinator Takehara's original and supplemental declarations. After reviewing these records, the undersigned finds that a carefully crafted protective order cannot protect the security interests discussed in Litigation Coordinator Takehara's declarations with the exception of the summary of the interview with plaintiff at AGO 00000075-76.Plaintiff was present at this interview and presumably knows the contents of the summary of this interview. For these reasons, disclosing to plaintiff the summary of this interview does not undermine the security interests discussed by Litigation Coordinator Takehara.
It also appears that several of the documents containing proposed redactions are of marginal relevance to plaintiff's case.
Accordingly, within twenty-one days of the date of this order, defendants are ordered to serve plaintiff with the redacted PREA investigation documents submitted August 17, 2022, with the exception of the summary of the interview with plaintiff at AGO 00000075-76. As discussed above, defendants shall provide plaintiff with an unredacted copy of the summary of this interview.
On August 17, 2022, defendants filed a summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 65.) On August 30, 2022, plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion based on the PREA documents within forty-five days of the date of this order. However, plaintiff is not required to supplement his opposition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, defendants shall serve plaintiff with the redacted PREA investigation documents, as discussed in this order;
2. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order to file a supplemental opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion; if plaintiff does not file a supplemental opposition, defendants' summary judgment motion will be deemed submitted for decision.