(PC) Campbell v. Tanton ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SENARBLE CAMPBELL, No. 2:18-cv-00671-KJM-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSHUA J. TANTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel in this civil rights action 18 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Counsel for the parties requested an informal telephone 19 conference with the undersigned in order to resolve a discovery dispute concerning plaintiff’s 20 request for the production of the complete personnel files of defendants Ellin and Herrera. ECF 21 No. 130. Having reviewed the requested documents in camera, the court has weighed the 22 potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages and has determined that the 23 official information privilege does not bar disclosure of the documents Bate stamped Ellin 005- 24 006. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Soto v. 25 City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (noting that “[i]n the context of civil 26 rights suits against [corrections officials], this balancing approach should be ‘moderately pre- 27 weighted in favor of disclosure.’”) (citation omitted). Counsel for defendants shall produce these 28 confidential materials subject to the terms and conditions of the protective order entered into by 1 || agreement of the parties on February 23, 2022. See ECF No. 127. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for defendants shall produce the 3 || above-listed confidential documents from defendant Ellin’s personnel file to plaintiff's counsel 4 | within 7 days from the date of this order subject to the terms and conditions of the protective 5 || order entered on February 23, 2022. 6 | Dated: April 4, 2022 / aie } it | / } a — 7 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 | 12/camp0671 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28