Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, et al., No. 2:20-cv-0903 KJM DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter came before the undersigned on March 5, 2021, for hearing of plaintiffs’ 18 motion to compel and defendants’ motion for a protective order pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). 19 (ECF No. 36.) Attorney Paul Masuhara appeared via Zoom on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney Carl 20 Fessenden appeared via Zoom on behalf of defendants. 21 Plaintiffs seek to compel the production of documents “identified as ‘Antonio Thomas’s 22 custody file[.]’” (Pl.’s JS (ECF No. 34) at 2.) Defendants do “not object to the production” of the 23 requested discovery. (Defs.’ JS (ECF No. 35) at 3.) To the contrary, defendants agree that the 24 documents are discoverable and have already produced a responsive portion with redactions. 25 (Id.) As to the remainder of the documents, defendants assert they should be produced pursuant 26 to a protective order. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ oppose defendants’ request and seek an order directing 27 defendants to produce the responsive documents. (Pls.’ JS (ECF No. 34) at 4.) 28 //// 1 “A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to 2 protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” 3 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re 4 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The 5 party opposing disclosure has the burden of proving ‘good cause,’ which requires a showing ‘that 6 specific prejudice or harm will result’ if the protective order is not granted.”). 7 “A demonstration of good cause embodies a showing (1) that the documents in question 8 truly are confidential and (2) that disclosure of the documents would cause a ‘clearly defined and 9 very serious injury.’” Traveler’s Ins. Co. v. Allied-Signal Inc. Master Pension Trust, 145 F.R.D. 10 17, 18 (D. Conn. 1992) (quoting United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 67 11 F.R.D. 40, 46 (S.D. N.Y. 1975)). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 12 examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 13 Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986). “The moving party must present a factual showing of 14 a particular and specific need for the protective order.” Welsh v. City and County of San 15 Francisco, 887 F. Supp. 1293, 1297 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In this regard, “[t]hat showing requires 16 specific demonstrations of fact, supported where possible by affidavits and concrete examples, 17 rather than broad, conclusory allegations of potential harm.” Deford v. Schmid Products Co., a 18 Div. of Schmid Laboratories, Inc., 120 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Md. 1987). 19 Here, defendants’ request is supported by an affidavit from Sacramento County Sherriff’s 20 Department Lieutenant Mark Lopez that provides a specific demonstration of fact and concrete 21 examples. Lieutenant Lopez declares that he has been in this position for 1 year.1 (Decl. Lopez 22 (ECF No. 31-2) at 1.) Lieutenant Lopez declares that he has reviewed the responsive documents 23 and identified the individual documents that in his belief “must be designate as confidential 24 1 Part of plaintiffs’ argument in opposition is the assertion that these documents cannot be 25 confidential because the defendants previously disclosed “the same types of documents” in prior actions without a protective order. (Defs.’ JS (ECF No. 35) at 19.) However, Lieutenant Lopez 26 has only held his position for one-year. Circumstances, technology, experiences, etc., may 27 change. The undersigned does not wish to penalize a party for attempting to proceed first with the most transparent discovery process possible nor incentive parties to elect to always proceed 28 via a more restrictive means lest they be penalized in the future. 1 because they contain specific information, that if disclosed to the public, could not only 2 jeopardize the health and safety of inmates and jail personnel, but also significantly impact the 3 jail’s efficiency.” (Id. at 3.) 4 As examples, Lieutenant Lopez explains how some documents contain “specific 5 information concerning the intake and jail cell check process[.]” (Id.) How other identified 6 documents “contain specific[s] concerning the classification system/process of the jail.” (Id.) 7 Lopez explains that public knowledge of this information “would allow those entering the jail a 8 greater ability to manipulate the system to their own advantage,” and could hamper proper 9 placement in medical and psych cells, as well as effective cell checks. (Id. at 4.) 10 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, at the March 5, 2021 hearing, and in the 11 parties’ briefing, the undersigned finds that defendants have made the necessary good cause 12 showing. See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th 13 Cir. 2002) (“the law . . . gives district courts broad latitude to grant protective orders”); Robinson 14 v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 15 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the 16 safety and security of the prison). 17 CONCLUSION 18 Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the 19 reasons set forth on the record at that hearing and above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiffs’ January 29, 2021 motion to compel (ECF No. 30) is denied; 21 2. Defendants’ January 29, 2021 renewed motion for a protective order (ECF No. 31) is 22 granted; 23 3. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the language of an agreed upon protective 24 order; 25 4. Within twenty-one days defendants shall file either an agreed upon protective order or 26 defendants’ proposed protective order; and 27 //// 28 //// 1 5. If defendants file a proposed protective order, plaintiffs may file an opposition within 2 || seven days.” 3 Dated: March 9, 2021 4 5 6 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DB /orders/orders,civi/thomas0903.oab.030521 25 26 27 | -——T—_ ? Plaintiffs’ opposition shall address the specifics of defendants’ proposed protective order and 28 | not rehash the need for the protective order or the undersigned’s good cause finding.