(PC) Wilkins v. Heslop ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. HESLOP, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with civil rights claims under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. On August 19. 2024, the undersigned issued an order 19 granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on June 7, 2024. (ECF Nos. 20 62, 73.) The undersigned also ordered defendants to submit for in camera review the 21 documents responsive to plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 2 and 4. 22 (ECF No. 73 at 10.) Defendants have submitted the documents for in camera review and moved 23 for a protective order. (ECF No. 74, 75.) 24 I. Document Production 25 The court has reviewed the responsive documents at issue, described as follows in 26 defendants’ privilege log: 27 CDCR Form 3013-2 (Inmate Interview for Allegation Worksheet) for appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 28 1 CDCR Form 3014 (Report of Findings—Inmate Interview) for appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 2 Confidential Appeal Inquiry Supplement to appeal log no. CHCF-E- 3 19-00132 4 (ECF No. 69-1 at 9.) Defendants objected to production on official information privilege and 5 right to privacy grounds and asked the court to consider state law on privilege to the extent it is 6 consistent with federal law. (See ECF No. 69 at 6-9.) 7 The court has reviewed the documents at issue and finds they should be disclosed to 8 plaintiff without redaction.1 The documents contain witness statements which are relevant to the 9 claims and defenses in this action within the meaning of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure. The documents do not reveal any institutional secrets. To the extent the documents 11 may reveal a procedure for investigation, it is merely the fact that an investigation was conducted 12 in which evidence was gathered from witness statements and used to render a decision. 13 Considering the privacy rights of the witnesses identified in the documents, the need for 14 the information sought based on its relevance to the claims and defenses outweighs the privacy 15 right asserted. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 16 (9th Cir. 1976) (balancing the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted to 17 resolve privacy objection). In addition, the court finds the potential benefits of disclosure, based 18 on the relevance of the information, outweigh the potential disadvantages, and overrules the 19 objection based on official information privilege. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 20 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990) (“To determine whether the information sought is privileged, 21 courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the 22 latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.”). Accordingly, defendants will be directed to 23 disclose the documents to plaintiff, subject to a protective order set forth below. 24 II. Protective Order 25 A court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 26 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including forbidding or limiting 27 1 Defendants requested redaction of witnesses’ statements and the reviewer’s conclusion/findings 28 to protect the integrity of CDCR’s investigative process. (See ECF No. 69-1 at 14, ¶ 12.) 1 | discovery, and specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 || 26(c)(1)(A)-(B). “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a 3 || protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. 4 | Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). 5 Defendants move for a protective order precluding plaintiff from having a physical copy 6 || of the documents to be disclosed. (ECF No. 74.) Defendants request to produce the documents for 7 | plaintiff's review by providing a copy to the litigation coordinator at plaintiffs facility and 8 | scheduling a time for plaintiff to review that copy. (ECF No. 74-2 at 1.) Thereafter, under 9 || defendants’ request, plaintiff may review the documents at his request. (Id.) Good cause 10 | appearing, defendants’ motion for a protective order is granted. 11 IV. Conclusion 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 13 1. Defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF No. 74) is granted. 14 2. Defendants shall coordinate with the facility where plaintiff incarcerated and schedule 15 a time slot of at least two hours within 14 days of the date of this order for plaintiff to 16 review the Inmate Interview for Allegation Worksheet (CDCR Form 3013-2), Report 17 of Findings—Inmate Interview (CDCR Form 3014), and Confidential Appeal Inquiry 18 Supplement to Appeal Log No. CHCF-E-19-00132. 19 3. CDCR staff shall retain a copy of the documents described above and provide plaintiff 20 a further opportunity to review the documents upon reasonable notice and request by 21 plaintiff during the course of this litigation. 22 4. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 23 pending motion for summary judgment within 35 days of the date of this order. 24 | DATED: September 6, 2024 food 26 SEAN C. RIORDAN 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28