Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUERSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-450 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley on 

February 6, 2023. On November 2, 2022, defendants filed objections to plaintiff’s trial exhibits 

filed October 17, 2022. (ECF Nos. 146, 150.) The instant order addresses only defendants’ 

objections to plaintiff’s exhibits at ECF No. 146 at 8-14. 

In their objections, defendants contend that plaintiff seeks to include confidential 

documents as trial exhibits that were previously produced to plaintiff’s former counsel under a 

protective order and labeled “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Defendants contend that the 

stipulated protective order (ECF No. 37) does not permit plaintiff access to these documents. (Id.

at 2.) Defendants contend that these documents were labeled “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes 

Only” because they were “designated in good faith to be confidential and for attorneys’ eyes 

only” based on “a good faith belief that the information is entitled to protection from disclosure to 

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 152 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

non-attorneys, because such information threatens the safety of individuals or inmates, or 

threatens the safety and security of a prison.” (Id.) Defendants contend that the parties agreed 

and the court ordered that plaintiff would not have access to documents so labeled “[u]nless 

otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, Counsel for the 

Receiving.” (Id. at 9; see also ECF No. 38.) Defendants contend that the court and defendants’

counsel did not permit plaintiff’s former counsel to disclose these documents to plaintiff. 

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s former counsel’s letter regarding providing relevant 

documents to plaintiff following the termination of his representation did not indicate confidential 

documents were being disclosed. (ECF No. 101.)

Defendants state that they were unaware that plaintiff’s former counsel provided those 

confidential documents directly to plaintiff until plaintiff filed them with the court. Defendants 

contend that because the court did not permit and defendants’ counsel did not agree to the 

disclosure of these documents to plaintiff, the production of these documents violates the 

protective order. Defendants request that the confidential documents be removed from the docket 

and filed under seal. Defendants further request that the court order plaintiff to return all copies 

he has of these confidential documents back to defendants’ counsel immediately. 

Plaintiff’s exhibits at ECF No. 146 at 8-14 are marked “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes 

Only.” For the reasons stated above, the undersigned finds that disclosure of these documents to 

plaintiff violates the protective order entered into between plaintiff’s former counsel and counsel 

for defendants. Accordingly, defendants’ request for these documents to be removed from the 

docket and filed under seal and for plaintiff to return all copies of documents marked 

“Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to defense counsel is granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the documents at ECF No. 146 at 8-14 

from the docket and to file these documents under seal;

2. Upon receipt of the instant order, plaintiff shall immediately serve defense counsel 

with all documents in his possession marked “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 

Plaintiff shall file proof of service with the court of these documents on defense 

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 152 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

counsel. Plaintiff shall not retain in his possession any documents marked 

“Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Failure to comply with this order may result in 

the imposition of sanctions. 

Dated: November 7, 2022

Tay450.ord(e)

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 152 Filed 11/07/22 Page 3 of 3