Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155-15/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DELEON, C. CARILLO, and A. 

GUZMAN,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND/OR 

ORDER AUTHORIZING REDACTION

On January 11, 2016, Defendants filed a motion under 

Local Rules 140 and 141.1 “for a Protective Order and/or Order 

Authorizing Redaction concerning confidential gang documents” 

that Defendants intend to proffer as exhibits at trial in a 

redacted form. (Defs.’ Mot. for Protective Order 1:24-2:3, ECF 

No. 90.) Defendants contend “these documents contain confidential 

information disclosed by other inmates, the disclosure of which 

to Plaintiff Silva would endanger the safety and security of 

these other inmates, along with CDCR institutions and staff.” 

(Id. at 1:27-2:3.) Defendants further state that their 

“redactions are narrowly tailored to redact only that information 

which could be harmful to the confidential informants and third 

party-inmates.” (Id. at 6:14-15.) However, Defendants did not 

submit for in camera consideration the “confidential gang 

documents” in redacted and unredacted form. Therefore, the Court 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 102 Filed 01/28/16 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

does not know the nature and scope of the proposed redactions and 

cannot determine whether each proposed redaction is appropriate 

under applicable redaction/sealing law. See generally Local Rule

140 (contemplating that the redaction movant submits redacted and 

unredacted documents). 

Further, Defendant’s motion is untimely. Local Rule 

141.1(b)(2) prescribes the procedure for obtaining a protective 

order in a civil trial. It states, in relevant part: “A party 

seeking a protective order relating to the admission of evidence 

at trial shall submit a stipulation or request with the party’s 

pretrial statement.” (emphasis added). Defendants did not submit 

such a request with their pretrial statement. To the contrary, 

Defendants stated in their pretrial statement that “[n]o special 

handling of trial exhibits is expected[,]” and that they “do not 

intend to seek a protective order and do not believe one is 

necessary as no confidential information will be disclosed during 

trial.” (Defs.’ Pretrial Statement 15:21, 16:2-3, ECF No. 80.)

Also, Defendants did not list as exhibits in their 

pretrial statement the documents, which are the subject of their 

motion, i.e., “confidential gang documents dated November 17, 

2004, July 19, 2006, January 22, 2008, August 5, 2008, December 

17, 2009, and January 6, 2010.” (Id. at 12:16-13:23.) Therefore, 

these documents are not listed as defense trial exhibits in the 

July 21, 2015 Pretrial Order. (Pretrial Order 12:4-28, ECF No. 

84.) Local Rule 281(b)(11) requires the parties to state in their 

pretrial statement, inter alia, “[a] list of documents or other 

exhibits that the party expects to offer at trial.” That rule 

further prescribes: “[o]nly exhibits so listed will be permitted 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 102 Filed 01/28/16 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

to be offered at trial except as may be otherwise provided in the 

pretrial order.” E.D. Cal. R. 281(b)(11). Thus, Defendants’ 

motion for a protective order requires modification of the July 

21, 2015 Pretrial Order, yet Defendants have not sought leave or 

addressed the legal standard required to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(e) (“The court may modify the order issued after a final 

pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice.”). 

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 

Dated: January 27, 2016

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 102 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3