(PC) Rood v. Lockwood ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLTON JAMES ROOD, No. 2:19-cv-1806 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LOCKWOOD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is defendants’ motion for a protective order. ECF No. 19 73. 20 By order filed March 27, 2023, the undersigned partially granted plaintiff’s motion to 21 compel and ordered defendants to provide supplemental responses to some of plaintiff’s 22 production requests. ECF No. 70. Relevant to the motion for protective order, defendants were 23 ordered “to produce copies of any staff or inmate complaints, grievances, disciplinary actions, 24 and operative complaints in lawsuits, from 2017 to the present and of which they are aware, that 25 deal with allegations that any of the defendants used excessive force on an inmate or that 26 Lockwood or Van Gerwen interfered with an inmate’s medical care.” Id. at 9 (footnote omitted). 27 Defendants were permitted to redact the documents as necessary for security purposes and to 28 move for a protective order if security concerns remained even after redaction. Id. 1 Defendants’ motion for protective order exceeds the scope of that contemplated by the 2 court in ordering production. The court has already made a determination regarding the relevance 3 of the documents ordered produced. To the extent defendants now try to expand their relevance 4 argument, arguing that the documents are not relevant because plaintiff’s claims that his 5 conditions were the result of a county custom or policy were dismissed, the argument comes too 6 late and is nevertheless unavailing. The documents to be produced are limited in scope to 7 complaints against defendants for conduct similar to that alleged by plaintiff, and such complaints 8 may be relevant to showing defendants’ habit or motive. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2); Fed. R. 9 Evid. 406; see also Shepherd v. Neuschmid, No. 2:19-cv-0084 JAM DB, 2021 WL 1172915, at 10 *4-5, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59918, at *9-13 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) (ordering production of 11 staff complaints and grievances); Porteous v. Avila, No. 1:21-cv-0529 SAB, 2022 WL 5226965, 12 at *4, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161318, at *9-10 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2022) (ordering production of 13 civil lawsuits); Richard v. Joseph, No. 2:21-cv-0975 KJN, 2022 WL 1241102, at *8-11, 2022 14 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77695, at *23-31 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2022) (ordering production of grievances 15 and complaints filed in court). 16 Defendants’ argument that production of the documents would be prejudicial because they 17 are not relevant, and because the order does not distinguish between unfounded and substantiated 18 complaints, similarly fails. The documents are relevant regardless of whether the complaints 19 have been substantiated. See Harris v. German, No. 1:15-cv-1462 DAD GSA, 2019 WL 20 4640503, at *8, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163548, at *23 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2019) (“In an 21 excessive force case such as this, the relevance and discoverability of officers’ disciplinary 22 records, including unfounded complaints and allegations of misconduct, are widely recognized.” 23 (collecting cases)). 24 Finally, although defendants were permitted to seek a protective order on the grounds of 25 privilege, the motion is deficient. In permitting defendants an opportunity to seek a protective 26 order, the court explicitly provided that in the event defendants sought a protective order, they 27 must provide a privilege log and declaration regarding the documents at issue, as required when 28 asserting the official information privilege. Id. at 9 n.3. 1 Defendants request that, in the event the court finds the documents relevant, the court 2 || conduct an in camera review of the documents prior to production. ECF No. 73 at 12. This 3 || request will be denied. As addressed above, the court already determined that the documents 4 || were relevant, and defendants provide no basis for burdening the court with an in camera review 5 || of the documents. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for protective order or 7 || alternative in camera review (ECF No. 73) is DENIED. 8 | DATED: April 26, 2023 ~ 9 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28