(PC) Kahaku v. Wallace ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL KAHAKU, No. 2:20-cv-1807 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. WALLACE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. On June 28, 2022, defendants were directed to submit certain documents for in camera 19 review. (ECF No. 39.) Defendants submitted such documents and filed a notice of compliance 20 confirming that certain discovery responses do not exist. (ECF No. 42.) The court has completed 21 the in camera review. 22 As set forth below, plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of documents in 23 response to request no. 2 is partially granted, and plaintiff is granted an extension of time to 24 oppose the pending motion for summary judgment. 25 Plaintiff’s Complaint 26 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s allegations that while he was housed at Mule Creek 27 State Prison, defendants K. Wallace, A. Bustamante, T. Freitas, J. Vina, E. Speer, J. Canela, N. 28 Hang, and G. Ellis conspired to retaliate against plaintiff for filing lawsuits in which plaintiff 1 received monetary settlements by engaging in a retaliatory cell search on August 9, 2019, during 2 which plaintiff’s cell was trashed and his authorized radio was confiscated. (ECF No. 8.) 3 Standards 4 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing 5 parties to obtain discovery regarding: 6 any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense -- including the existence, description, nature, custody, 7 condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable 8 matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant 9 information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 10 evidence. 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court has broad discretion to manage discovery. Hunt v. County of 12 Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278, 289 13 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). 14 Discussion 15 In connection with their opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, 16 defendants provided a privilege log (ECF No. 34-2 at 57-59) and the declaration of D. Santos, 17 litigation coordinator at Mule Creek State Prison (ECF No. 34-2 at 61-69), objecting that the 18 documents sought are subject to third party privacy interests and the official information 19 privilege. Pursuant to court order, defendants produced, for in camera review, documents related 20 to nine different administrative appeals from the Inmate Appeals Tracking System (“IATS”). 21 Upon review of the submitted documents, the undersigned finds that only three of the nine inmate 22 appeals relate to allegations that one or more of the defendants were involved in cell searches at 23 MCSP and alleged that such cell searches were conducted in retaliation for the inmate’s protected 24 conduct: 18-5098; 19-2006; and 19-3375. 25 The official information privilege is qualified. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 26 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990). “To determine whether the information sought is privileged, 27 courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages.” Id. 28 “In the context of civil rights suits against [corrections officials], this balancing approach should 1 be ‘moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.’” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 2 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987)). 3 Here, defendants failed to adequately demonstrate that these three inmate appeals are 4 privileged. Indeed, the bulk of Santos’ declaration focuses on the risks surrounding release of 5 personnel material that may disclose investigative techniques. (ECF No. 34-2 at 66-67.) Inmate 6 grievances against defendants based upon the same type of conduct at issue in this action are 7 relevant. See Garcia v. Cluck, 2013 WL 6441474, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2013) (finding 8 complaints by inmates about conduct similar to the plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation are 9 relevant, and directing production of same with redactions based on potential privacy concerns); 10 see Houston v. Eldridge, 2018 WL 1014459, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2018) (finding pro se 11 prisoner entitled to discovery of grievances filed by other inmates against defendants for similar 12 claims, despite relevancy objection). Third party privacy concerns may be protected by redacting 13 confidential information. Thus, the undersigned finds that plaintiff should be permitted to review 14 the documents submitted in connection with the three relevant appeals. That said, the court is 15 persuaded that security concerns, including plaintiff’s case factors, should preclude plaintiff from 16 retaining copies of such documents. 17 Recognizing the privacy rights of third parties and the interests of prison security, the 18 undersigned finds that it is appropriate to permit plaintiff to review only the documents submitted 19 in connection with appeals 18-5098, 19-2006, and 19-3375 that bear defense counsel’s proposed 20 redactions. Specifically, Appeal 18-05098 SLR (10 pages); Appeal 19-02006 SLR-SC (7 pages); 21 Appeal 03375 FLR (5 pages); and Appeal 03375 SLR (10 pages), as redacted, shall be available 22 for review. Counsel for defendants shall make arrangements with the Mule Creek State Prison 23 litigation coordinator for plaintiff to review the redacted documents, and such review shall occur 24 within the next thirty days. Plaintiff’s review shall be two hours in length; plaintiff shall be 25 provided with paper and writing material and be permitted to take notes. Plaintiff shall not be 26 permitted to take possession of the reviewed documents. Such precautions address defendants’ 27 security concerns. 28 //// ] No less than fourteen days following plaintiff's review of these documents, plaintiff shall 2 || file a notice acknowledging that he completed the review. 3 Because defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending, plaintiff is granted an 4 || extension of time to oppose the motion. Within thirty days from the date plaintiff completes the 5 || review of the redacted documents submitted in connection with appeals 18-5098, 19-2006, and 6 || 19-3375, plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is 7 || cautioned that failure to timely file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment may result 8 | in a recommendation that the motion be granted. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs motion to compel further production of documents in response to request no. 11 | 2 (ECF No. 33) is partially granted; 12 2. Within the next thirty days, as set forth above, defendants shall allow plaintiff to 13 || review the redacted documents: Appeal 18-05098 SLR; Appeal 19-02006 SLR-SC; Appeal 14 | 03375 FLR; and Appeal 03375 SLR; 15 3. No less than fourteen days following plaintiff's review of the documents, plaintiff shall 16 || file a notice acknowledging that he completed the review; 17 4. In all other respects, plaintiffs motion for further production of documents (ECF No. 18 || 33) 1s denied; and 19 5. Plaintiffis granted thirty days from the date he reviews the redacted documents to file 20 | his opposition to the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45). 21 Dated: December 9, 2022 ” Aectl Aharon 23 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 35 fkahal807.icr 26 27 28