(PC) Harris v. Kyle ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEVONTE B. HARRIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00462-DAD-EPG (PC) 11 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION 13 v. FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 (ECF Nos. 79, 84) K. KYLE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are 18 Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and motion for reconsideration. (ECF 19 Nos. 79, 84.) 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to serious risk of 22 harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kyle, Grossman, Thompson, 23 Depovic, Moreno, Overly, Wright, Gamez, and Castillo, and for retaliation in violation of the 24 First Amendment against Defendants Kyle, Moreno, Wright, Overly, Gamez, and Castillo. 25 (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 15, 17, 31.) Plaintiff alleges, in relevant part, that he reported having suicidal 26 thoughts while housed in the Short Term Restricted Housing unit (“STRH”) at California State 27 Prison—Corcoran because the windowless cells in STRH lack natural light, but Defendant 28 1 Kyle nonetheless issued a chrono in September of 2016 indicating that he could be placed in 2 STRH. (ECF No. 1 at 11.) 3 A. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order 4 On January 29, 2020, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in this case. (ECF No. 37.) 5 Among other things, the Scheduling Order directed the parties to file a privilege log with the 6 Court if a party sought to withhold a document on the basis of privilege. (Id.) On August 17, 7 2020, Defendants Kyle and Overly filed a privilege log in support of their responses to 8 Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 52.) On September 3, 9 2020, Defendants Kyle and Overly filed an amended privilege log. (ECF No. 57.) The amended 10 privilege log listed documents requested by Plaintiff that Defendants Kyle and Overly had not 11 produced on various grounds, including third-party or non-party privacy rights, the official 12 information privilege, and HIPPA. (Id.) The amended privilege log also cited to declarations of 13 T. Williams and J. Sherman, but no declarations were attached or filed concurrently therewith. 14 (Id.) 15 Because the Court was not able to determine whether the grounds asserted by 16 Defendants Kyle and Overly support withholding of the identified documents from Plaintiff, 17 the Court directed Defendants Kyle and Overly to file a motion for protective order addressing 18 the privacy issues and any support for the official information privilege or other qualified 19 privilege. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants Kyle and Overly were further directed to mail the 20 documents at issue to the Court for in camera review. (Id.) The Court also set a deadline of 21 October 30, 2020, for Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for protective order. (Id.) 22 Defendant Kyle filed a motion for protective order on October 9, 2020. (ECF No. 60.) 23 According to the motion, the parties met and conferred in an attempt to resolve their 24 disagreement regarding the withheld documents and narrowed their dispute to Plaintiff’s 25 request for certain emails between Defendant Kyle and another mental health clinician, L. 26 Edmonds. (ECF No. 60 at 3.) Defendant Kyle produced the responsive emails but redacted 27 them to exclude information related to another patient. (Id.) The motion represented that 28 Plaintiff did not object to the redaction of the third-party patient’s name but thought the 1 remaining information about the patient should not have been redacted. (Id.) Defendant Kyle 2 argued that the redacted portions contain information related to the third-party patient’s mental 3 health, do not relate to Plaintiff, and are protected by the third-party patient’s privacy rights, 4 HIPPA, and the official information privilege. (Id. at 3, 5-9.) Redacted copies of the email 5 communications in dispute were attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Byron M. Miller 6 submitted in support of the motion and were identified as Bates numbers AG000892— 7 AG000909. (ECF No. 60-1 at 24-41.) Defendant also mailed the unredacted documents at issue 8 to the Court for in camera review. 9 Plaintiff did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to the motion for protective 10 order. 11 On January 20, 2021, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motion for 12 protective order. (ECF No. 76.) The Court reasoned that the third-party patient had a privacy 13 interest in his confidential medical and mental health information set forth in the emails. (Id.) 14 Additionally, the information did not appear to be relevant to this case and Plaintiff did not 15 explain why he wanted this information or what bearing it may have on his claims against 16 Defendant Kyle or any of the remaining defendants. (Id.) Therefore, on balance, the third-party 17 patient’s privacy interests outweighed Plaintiff’s need for the information and Defendant Kyle 18 was not required to produce the requested emails in unredacted form. (Id.) 19 B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Reconsideration 20 On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents. (ECF 21 No. 79.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks unredacted copies of the same emails that were the 22 subject of Defendant’s motion for protective order. (Id.) Plaintiff first argues that the first 23 names of CDCR employees are not confidential and should not have been redacted. (Id. at 6.) 24 Additionally, under CDCR policy, employees’ e-mails are not private or confidential and if the 25 information contained in an email is confidential or protected by state or federal law, it should 26 be encrypted or password protected. (Id. at 6-7.) Here, the emails at issue were not encrypted or 27 password protected. (Id. at 7.) Further, Plaintiff’s interest in disclosure outweighs any prejudice 28 to Defendants or third parties because “[d]isclosure of the unredacted emails will prove that 1 Defendant Kyle failed to assess the individual needs of each patient and systematically denied 2 both treatment.” (Id. at 8.) 3 Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to compel on February 18, 2021. (ECF No. 4 82.) Defendants argue that the motion to compel should be denied for the same reasons 5 explained in the Court’s order granting Defendant Kyle’s motion for a protective order. (Id. at 6 2.) That order is the law of the case and is not subject to attack. (Id.) Additionally, the purpose 7 of the CDCR email policy is to protect information such as health status. (Id.) Even if 8 Defendant Kyle’s emails were not encrypted, which Plaintiff has not shown, the third-party 9 inmate whom the policy was meant to protect should not be punished. (Id.) 10 Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his motion to compel. Instead, on February 25, 11 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendant 12 Kyle’s motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff argues that the Scheduling Order 13 did not contain deadlines for responding to a motion for protective order and he did not know 14 he was required to respond to Defendant Kyle’s motion. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also reiterates his 15 argument that the third-party inmate’s information was disclosed “in a publicly accessible 16 email forum without encryption or password protection[.]” (Id. at 5.) Additionally, the third- 17 party inmate’s information is highly relevant because Defendant Kyle refused both Plaintiff and 18 this other patient admission to suicide watch after they reported suicidal thoughts despite their 19 individualized needs and prescribed a “no sharps” chrono for both patients despite it having no 20 relationship to Plaintiff’s plan to hang himself. (Id. at 5-6.) Therefore, this information 21 “demonstrate[s] Defendant Kyle’s deliberate indif[ference] to Plaintiff’s risk of committing 22 suicide.” (Id.) 23 Defendants did not file an opposition or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s motion for 24 reconsideration. 25 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 26 A. Motion to Compel 27 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 28 party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 1 the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 2 relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 3 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 4 benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Furthermore, discoverable information “need not be 5 admissible in evidence.” Id. 6 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party seeking discovery 7 may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 9 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 10 The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which 11 discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel; (2) which of the responses are 12 disputed; (3) why the party believes the response is deficient; (4) why any objections are not 13 justified; and (5) why the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of 14 this action. Haraszewski v. Knipp, 2020 WL 4676387, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020). 15 “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 16 litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 17 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 18 (9th Cir. 2011)). 19 B. Motion for Reconsideration 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), 21 [o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 22 representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 23 reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 24 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or 25 misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 26 has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer 27 equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 1 Under Rule 60(b)(6), plaintiff “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond 2 his control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v. 3 Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Additionally, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 5 injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from 6 taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Id. (citation and internal 7 quotation marks omitted). 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 As to Plaintiff’s request that Defendants produce emails that do not redact the third- 10 party inmate’s information, the Court has already granted Defendant Kyle’s motion for 11 protective order and directed these emails to be produced in redacted form. (ECF No. 76.) 12 Therefore, the portion of Plaintiff’s motion to compel concerning these redactions is construed 13 as a request for reconsideration of the Court’s order, along with Plaintiff’s motion for 14 reconsideration. 15 Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts or law that show that he meets any of the above- 16 17 mentioned reasons for granting reconsideration. Although Plaintiff argues that he did not know 18 he was supposed to respond to Defendant Kyle’s motion for protective order, the Court’s order 19 directing Defendant Kyle to file that motion also directed Plaintiff to file an opposition by no 20 later than October 30, 2020. (ECF No. 58.) Defendant Kyle’s motion also informed Plaintiff 21 that the deadline to oppose the motion was October 30, 2020. (ECF No. 60.) 22 Moreover, Plaintiff still has not met his burden of explaining how the third-party 23 inmate’s information is relevant. Plaintiff argues that the third-party inmate’s health 24 information shows that Defendant Kyle “systematically denied” treatment to both inmates, 25 Plaintiff’s claims do not challenge a custom, policy, or practice of deliberate indifference. Any 26 “systematic” denial of treatment involving Defendant Kyle’s care of others therefore has no 27 bearing on the present question: whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a threat of 28 1 serious harm or injury to Plaintiff. See Salinas v. Wang, 2021 WL 1060160, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2 Mar. 18, 2021) (“As a general matter, third-party prisoner complaints in deliberate indifference 3 cases are not relevant to whether a defendant as deliberately indifferent to plaintiff, and they are 4 likely inadmissible and of limited probative value.”). Because the requested discovery is not 5 relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will not compel Defendants to produce emails without 6 redactions of the third-party inmate’s information. 7 Additionally, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404, “[e]vidence of any other crime, 8 wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a 9 particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). 10 While this evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, 11 opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of 12 accident[,]” Plaintiff does not seek to use this evidence for any of these purposes. See Fed. R. 13 Evid. 404(b)(2). Instead, Plaintiff is requesting the third-party inmate’s information in order to 14 show that Defendant Kyle did something similar to Plaintiff to another person at another time. 15 16 Although Federal Rule of Evidence 406 allows evidence of a person’s habit or an 17 organization’s routine practice “to prove on a particular occasion the person or organization 18 acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice[,]” habit refers to “semi-automatic” 19 conduct as opposed to deliberative and volitional conduct like treatment decisions that are at 20 issue here. Fed. R. Evid. 406; United States v. Angwin, 271 F.3d 786, 799 (9th Cir. 2001), 21 overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lopez, 484 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 22 Additionally, habit generally requires regular, numerous examples and not just one instance. 23 Angwin, 271 F.3d at 799. The information Plaintiff seeks is therefore generally not admissible 24 to prove that Defendant Kyle was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff. 25 The Court’s order granting Defendant Kyle’s motion for protective order did not 26 address Plaintiff’s request for Defendants to produce the responsive emails without CDCR 27 employees’ first names redacted. However, it is again unclear how this information might be 28 1 || relevant. Plaintiff has not explained why he wants this information or what bearing it may have 2 his claims against Defendants. The Court appreciates the safety and security concerns with 3 identifying employees’ first names. The Court will therefore also deny the motion to compel 4 || Defendants to produce emails without redactions of the CDCR employees’ first names. > IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel 7 (ECF No. 79) and motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 84) are DENIED. 8 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Datea: _ April 2, 2021 [fey — 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28