Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02729/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02729-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FONDA WHITFIELD, and )

THE ESTATE OF DEON WHITFIELD, by )

Fonda Whitfield, )

) 2:04-cv-2729-GEB-JFM

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE )

OF CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY; )

JERRY HARPER; WALTER ALLEN III; )

JEFF HARADA; DR. PARAGUAN; and )

HAMID SIAL, M.D., )

)

Defendants. )

)

On January 6, 2006, Defendants filed a request for

reconsideration of the ruling filed by the Magistrate Judge on

December 21, 2005, (“Magistrate Judge Ruling”), which granted

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of documents submitted to the

Magistrate Judge for in camera review. On January 19, 2006,

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the request for reconsideration of

the Magistrate Judge Ruling. An Order filed March 24, 2006,

(“March 24 Order”), noted Defendants had not submitted the discovery

documents to the undersigned District Judge for review, and affirmed

the Magistrate Judge Ruling because Defendants had not provided a

sufficient record in support of their request. 

Case 2:04-cv-02729-GEB -JFM Document 41 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 4
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

On March 29, 2006, Defendants filed a request for

reconsideration of the March 24 Order, stating they did not submit the

discovery documents to the undersigned District Judge because they

previously lodged the documents with the District Court and believed

the documents were part of the record. Defendants subsequently

resubmitted the documents to the District Judge and requested the

documents be filed under seal. On April 7, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an

opposition to the request for reconsideration of the March 24 Order. 

DISCUSSION

I. Request for Reconsideration of March 24 Order

Defendants filed a “Notice of Lodging/Filing Document in

Paper” on September 23, 2005, and again on Ocotber 21, 2005

(“Notices”). In the Notices, Defendants stated they submitted the

discovery documents to the Magistrate Judge for in camera review and

requested the documents be filed under seal. Defendants did not file

a proposed order with their Notices, as is required by Local Rule 39-

141(d). If a proposed order had been submitted and signed, the

documents would have been filed on the electronic server and made

accessible to the undersigned District Judge. See Local Rule 39-

141(d)(sealed documents are filed on the electronic server and made

accessible to authorized users). However, the documents were never

filed on the server, and could not be located before the March 24

Order issued. If Defendants had complied with the Local Rules, the

required proposed order might have been signed and the documents could

have been available to the District Judge for review. See Dela Rosa

v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th

Cir. 1998) (Local Rules “are not optional suggestions . . . but rules

Case 2:04-cv-02729-GEB -JFM Document 41 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 4
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

The following documents have been reviewed: (1) 1

Operational Analysis Report; (2) Internal Affairs Unit

Investigation Report; (3) Memorandum of the Internal Affairs Unit

Investigation of In-Custody Death; (4) SPAR Quarterly Reports for

Preston from 2001 - 2004; (5) Compliance Review of SPAR Policy

Compliance Unit, November 1, 2001; (6) Provisions of Services to

Wards on Restricted Program Status, California Commission on

Juvenile Justice, Crime and Delinquency Prevention, August 2002;

(7) the personnel files of the individual Defendants. 

Plaintiffs state “[i]f Defendants are truly concerned 2

about the privacy of individual Defendants’ home addresses and

(continued...)

3

that complement the federal rules, are entitled to respect, and

command compliance”). 

However, after Defendants filed their request for

reconsideration of the March 24 Order, the documents were discovered

in the chambers of the Magistrate Judge. Because the documents were

apparently misplaced in the courthouse, the request for

reconsideration of the March 24 Order is granted. See School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993) (reconsideration is appropriate if the initial decision was

manifestly unjust). Furthermore, Defendants’ request to seal the

documents is granted since the documents are already subject to a

protective order filed by the Magistrate Judge on December 21, 2005. 

II. Request for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Ruling

The documents at issue have been reviewed. Since 1

Defendants express concerns about certain private information in their

personnel files, and Plaintiffs indicate they have no objection to the

redaction of private information, Defendants may redact their social

security numbers, names of family members, home address and telephone

numbers, family and health insurance information, driver license and

vehicle license numbers, and bank account numbers. See Taylor v. Los 2

Case 2:04-cv-02729-GEB -JFM Document 41 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 4
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

(...continued) 2

phone numbers there is no reason that this information cannot be

provided in redacted form, subject to further order.” (Pls.’

Opp’n, Jan. 19, 2006, at 11.)

4

Angeles Police Dept., 1999 WL 33101661, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10,

1999) (holding personnel files were not privileged, but allowing the

defendants to redact “such personal information as social security

numbers, home address/telephone numbers, [and] family and health

insurance information”). Otherwise, the Magistrate Judge Ruling was

not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and is affirmed. See L.R.

72-303(f) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and stating that a ruling by a

magistrate judge shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary

to law”). 

The Clerk of the Court shall file under seal the documents

submitted for in camera review on September 23, 2005, and

October 21, 2005, and shall return to Defendants the documents

submitted for in camera review on March 29, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 25, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02729-GEB -JFM Document 41 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 4