Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05980-12/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

EDWARD JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. T. LUNDY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05980-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER REQUIRING

DEFENDANTS TO SERVE RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR THE

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, NUMBER

4

(Doc. 49)

On January 25, 2007, the court issued an order granted in part and denying in part plaintiff’s

motion to compel filed on December 20, 2006. The order stated in relevant part:

POD 4: Plaintiff seeks the use of force incident report dated March 3, 2003.

Defendants object on the ground of confidentiality.

Defendants may not avoid producing discoverable documents by tendering a vague

objection that the document contains confidential information. See Soto v. City of

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (party asserting the official

information privilege must properly invoke it by making a “substantial threshold

showing”) (quoting Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669 (N.D. Cal. 1987)).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this request is granted, and defendants

shall produce the document within thirty days. If the document contains

information relating to confidential informants, defendants may redact that

information prior to producing it. If the document contains any other information

that defendants believe warrants redaction, defendants may submit the unredacted

copy to the court for in camera review, accompanied by a description of which

portions they believe should be subject to redaction and why.

(Doc. 49, 2:18-3:2 (emphasis added).)

On February 20, 2007, defendants submitted redacted and unredacted copies of the

documents they served on plaintiff in response to his request. The redactions made by defendants

///

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 60 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 2
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 documents will be returned to defendants’ counsel by mail, with no copy kept by the court. 1

2

are appropriate. Accordingly, the court’s order requiring defendants to serve a response to request

number 4 is HEREBY DISCHARGED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05980-DLB Document 60 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 2