Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02216-35/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

ERNEST LEE VADEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ROBERT L. MAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action against California 

State Prison, Solano, and two physicians employed there. Plaintiff proceeds on the following 

claims:

1. Claims arising under the First Amendment against defendants Dr. Mayes and Dr. 

Kuersten based upon retaliation for protected conduct.

2. Claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Dr. Mayes concerning 

denial or delay of medical care regarding his denying plaintiff a wheelchair, treatment as to

plaintiff’s vitamin B-12 deficiency, and treatment for plaintiff’s diabetes.

3. A claim against defendant California State Prison, Solano arising under Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act.

/////

/////

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 180 Filed 10/11/24 Page 1 of 5
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 February 28, 2023, the court ordered that the parties meet and confer to potentially 

resolve their differences with respect to defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s first and second set of 

requests for production of documents. On November 3, 2023, and pursuant to the request of the 

parties, the court agreed to conduct an in camera review of certain documents recovered by counsel 

for defendants to ascertain whether they must be produced. The documents have been submitted, and 

the court has conducted the requested review. The court notes that defendants have dropped their 

request for in camera review with respect to documents AGO 012-21, 032-33, 46-49, 068-086, 107-

155, 163-181, 189-218, 225-248, 250-263 & 339-426. The court assumes that these documents have 

already been turned over to plaintiff, are in plaintiff’s possession, or are available to plaintiff. 

1. Documents Related to Plaintiff’s Grievances

The first set of documents the court reviewed concern prisoner grievances filed by plaintiff

resulting investigations and findings. Defendants’ only remaining objection concerning these 

documents is an assertion of the “official information” privilege. “Federal common law recognizes a 

qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th 

Cir. 1990). Generally speaking, “official information” is information collected by a governmental 

entity and kept confidential because governmental or privacy interests would be threatened by 

disclosure. See Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 481 (S.D. Cal. 2012). “To determine whether 

the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the 

potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d 

1027, 1033-34; see Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (describing the 

balancing test as “moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure”). The court has conducted the 

required balancing test as finds as follows:

A. AGO 001-6, 11, 31, 34-38, 44-46, 50, 54-55, 57-58

Defendants assert that these documents reveal the process for resolution of inmate grievances 

which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) generally does not reveal 

to inmates for fear inmates might manipulate the process and the revelation of “internal checks and 

balances” could be used against staff. ECF No. 167 at 19-20. While the court finds these reasons 

mostly vague, the court does accord some deference to the expertise of corrections officials. Having 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 180 Filed 10/11/24 Page 2 of 5
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

reviewed the documents, the court concludes that the evidentiary value of the documents is minimal at 

best. Further, it is not likely that their production would lead to the discovery of any admissible 

evidence, particularly as none of plaintiff’s grievances were substantiated. For these reasons, the 

documents identified above need not be produced.

B. AGO 007-10, 39-43, 51-53, 56

These documents are reports generated pursuant to investigations concerning grievances filed 

by plaintiff relating to the claims remaining in this action. The relevance of the information in the 

reports is manifest. In circumstance, the concerns of CDCR identified above must give way. 

C. AGO 022-26

These documents are essentially a summary of interviews conducted with plaintiff and staff 

concerning matters potentially relevant to plaintiff’s remaining ADA claim. Defendants again object 

to revealing its process, but the relevance of the information in the documents justifies production. 

Defendants also argue in favor of privilege by stating that witnesses interviewed in an investigation 

process might be less truthful if they know their statements could be made public. The court has 

reviewed the statements made by witnesses and finds that, in this instance, nothing said by any 

witness is potentially harmful to that witness if the information were to be made public. Further, 

nothing suggests that the integrity of any future investigation would be at risk by production of the 

documents identified above. 

D. AGO 027-30

The court agrees with defendants that AGO 027-30 need not be produced based upon lack of 

relevance. As indicated above, interviews were conducted with respect to matters potentially relevant 

to plaintiff’s ADA claim. The documents identified as AGO 27-030 are simply notices to one of the 

persons interviewed to appear for interview and an advisement of rights. These documents need not 

be produced. 

E. AGO 087-106

Defendants assert that documents AGO 087-106 are duplicative of AGO 022-033 except that 

there are some blank pages included. As this does appear to be the case, defendants need not produce 

AGO 087-106. 

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 180 Filed 10/11/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

2. Documents Related to Grievances Filed by Inmate Kenneth Taylor

In request to produce no. 1, plaintiff seeks documents relating to complaints made by other 

inmates as to falsification of records by defendants Dr. Mayes or Dr. Kuersten. Defendants have 

already turned over some documents related to grievances filed by inmate Kenneth Taylor. As for 

AGO 156-162, 182-188, 219-225 & 249, the court agrees with defendants that nothing in these 

documents concerns falsification of any records by either defendant, and nothing suggests that these 

documents are within the scope of discovery identified in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Defendants will not be ordered to produce any of these documents.

3. Documents Related to Grievances Filed by Inmate Michael Myers

Defendants have provided documents concerning prisoner grievances filed by Michael Myers. 

As defendants argue, nothing suggests that these documents have any relevance to plaintiff’s 

remaining claims. Accordingly, defendants will not be ordered to turn over these documents.

4. Documents Related to Grievances Filed by Inmates Richard Welk and Gregory Lanier

Defendants provide some documents they believe could be responsive to request to produce 

no. 1 pertaining to grievances filed by inmates Richard Welk and Gregory Lanier. Unlike inmate

Taylor, these inmates did not consent to have plaintiff receive their medical records and defendants 

again assert the “official information” privilege, citing to the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d, et seq.

The “official information” privilege is not applicable as none of the documents appear to be 

confidential. For the most part, the documents were either generated by inmate Welk or Lanier in 

direct response to a concern raised by Welk or Lanier or are medical records. There is no revelation 

of confidential process, no statements by witnesses or any other reason to prevent plaintiff from 

obtaining these documents except with respect to the privacy of medical records protected by HIPAA 

and other laws and regulations. As for HIPPA and other privacy rights, the court finds that the 

documents identified as AGO 264-338 (Welk) & AGO 433-503 (Lanier) are either within the scope 

of discovery identified in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or that defendants 

have not established that the documents are not within the scope. The court will order that these 

documents be disclosed to plaintiff. However, disclosure is limited as follows:

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 180 Filed 10/11/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

1. The documents shall be produced to and kept in the custody of the litigation coordinator at 

plaintiff’s place of incarceration. 

2. Plaintiff is permitted to review the documents in the presence of the litigation coordinator 

for no more than two hours and may take notes as to the contents of the documents. 

Plaintiff cannot obtain copies at this stage.

3. Plaintiff shall not reveal to any person any information obtained by him though the 

documents ordered produced as it pertains to the medical condition of inmate Welk or 

Lanier. Doing so could result in plaintiff being held in contempt of court or the 

imposition of other sanctions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The documents identified as AGO 007-10, 022-26, 39-43, 51-53, 56 submitted for in 

camera review shall be turned over to plaintiff within 21 days.

2. The documents identified as AGO 264-338 and AGO 433-503 shall be turned over to the 

litigation coordinator at the California Medical Facility within 21 days and are subject to the 

protective order described herein. The litigation coordinator shall provide plaintiff with access within 

30 days. 

3. No later than December 15, 2024, the parties shall submit a joint status report as to any 

issues which remain concerning defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s first or second set of requests for 

production of documents. If no status report is filed, the court will assume all matters are resolved. 

Discovery remains closed in all other respects. 

4. The Clerk of the Court file the documents submitted by defendants for in camera review

under seal. 

Dated: October 10, 2024

1/vade2216.mtc(6)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02216-TLN-CKD Document 180 Filed 10/11/24 Page 5 of 5