Opinion
2:19-cv-0450 TLN KJN P
01-10-2023
KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. KUERSTON, 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. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on February 6, 2023. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff is ordered to return to defense counsel all documents marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only” upon their discovery.
On November 7, 2022, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to immediately serve defense counsel with all documents in his possession marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only,” and file proof of service with the court. (ECF No. 152.)
As of November 29, 2022, the court had not received proof of service by plaintiff on defense counsel of the documents discussed in the November 7, 2022 order. On November 29, 2022, the undersigned ordered defense counsel to inform the court whether they received from plaintiff the documents discussed in the November 7, 2022 order. (ECF No. 153.)
On December 5, 2022, defense counsel informed the court that they did not receive any documents from plaintiff as ordered by the court on November 7, 2022. (ECF No. 154.)
On December 2, 2022, plaintiff filed a pleading titled “notice of returning confidential documents...” (ECF No. 158.) In this pleading, plaintiff states that he served defense counsel with all documents in his possession marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also claims that on November 10, 2022, Institutional Security Unit (“ISU”) guards raided his housing unit. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the ISU guards searched, disorganized and mixed his nine boxes of legal property. (Id.) Plaintiff states that he is still searching for other documents marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only” that were dislocated during the search by the ISU guards. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff attached to his December 2, 2022 pleading documents marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.” These documents are separately filed under seal. (ECF No. 157.) It appears that plaintiff served these documents on defense counsel. If not, defense counsel shall inform the court.
In his December 2, 2022 pleading, plaintiff sought reconsideration of the November 7, 2022 order directing him to return to defense counsel the documents marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.” On January 3, 2023, the Honorable Troy L. Nunley affirmed the November 7, 2022 order. (ECF No. 159.)
According to plaintiff's December 2, 2022 pleading, he returned to defense counsel all documents in his possession marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only.” Plaintiff shall return to defense counsel any other documents marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only” upon their discovery.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall serve defense counsel with any other documents marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only” upon their discovery; plaintiff shall file proof of service with the court of additional documents returned to defense counsel.