Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-32/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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR CLARIFICATION AND DENYING

MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER RE

IN CAMERA REVIEW

(ECF No. 124)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 125, 127)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the Complaint filed May

13, 2008, against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez, and Masiel for use

of excessive force, and Defendants Adams and Ruiz for failing to protect Plaintiff in violation of the

Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Martinez, David, Miranda, and Garcia for assault and

battery; and against Defendants David, Miranda, Melo, Garcia, Mendoza, Martinez, and Masiel for

intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence in violation of state law. On May 18,

2011, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii issued an Order Vacating the Order Partially Granting

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and referred the Motion to Compel back to the Magistrate Judge for

consideration. (ECF No. 108). On May 27, 2011, an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

1

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 1 of 10
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

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel issued. (ECF No. 109.) On July 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Reconsideration. (ECF No. 113.) On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Motion for

Reconsideration, and on July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Second Supplemental Motion for

Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order. (ECF Nos. 113, 115, 116.) On September 1, 1

2011, the Magistrate Judge conducted an in camera review as discussed in the May 27, 2011 order. 

The Magistrate Judge determined that certain documents were entitled to a protective order, and an

order issued directing Defendants to file a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 121.) On

September 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification and Modification of the September 1,

2011 order. (ECF No. 124.) Defendants filed a Motion for a Protective Order on October 3, 2011. 

(ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion for a Protective Order on October 20,

2011. (ECF No. 127.)

II. Discussion

The Magistrate Judge conducted an in camera review of the documents which Defendants

claimed are entitled to protection due to the confidentiality of the information or due to the threat to

the security and safety of the institution. Pursuant to this review, the Court issued an orderinforming

the parties of the intended rulings and granted Defendants thirty days in which to file a motion for

a protective order and proposed protective order.

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and Modification of Order

Plaintiff moves for clarification and modification of the order re in camera review of

documents issued September 1, 2011. Plaintiff states that he was not provided with a list of

documents that were reviewed and it is unclear whether any documents were produced regarding

request for production nos. 26 and 28. Plaintiff requests that all documents that were reviewed by

the Court be produced. Plaintiff moves that he be allowed to contact the inmates involved in prior

incidents and provides a letter and form declaration to be sent to each inmate.

In the Court’s in camera review, the Court reviewed the documents produced by defendants

and determined which documents are relevant to this action. Plaintiff’s request for all documents

The motions for reconsideration are currently pending decision by the District Judge.

1

2

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 2 of 10
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

to be produced is denied, only relevant documents shall be ordered to be produced.. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). Upon production of the documents in compliancewith this order,Defendants shall identify

the document requests for which the documents are responsive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). 

Plaintiff’s request to have his letter and form declaration sent to all inmates identified in the

documents must be denied because he has not provided evidence that he completed the process to

obtain written authorization from the appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139

(2010). Further, because the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than

Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court can onlymake a request to prison officials and cannot orderthem

to allow Plaintiff to correspond with his witnesses. E.g., City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. at 102;

ValleyForge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. Such a request shall not be made by the Court without

assurances that Plaintiff has followed procedures and used the available resources at the prison to

obtain written authorization after consideration by prison officials of safety, security, and procedural

priorities. The Court recognizes that prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging

deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed

to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Whitley v. Albers,

475 U.S. 312, 321-322 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1970). 

B. Motion for Protective Order

Defendants move for a Protective Order for employee personnel records, appeals records for

inmates, and internal use of force policies that were in effect at times material to the issues raised

in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order 2, ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff

opposes the Protective Order on the grounds that Defendants did not meet and confer as required in

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), the Order is vague and ambiguous, and there is no need 2

for a protective order. (Plaintiff’s Opp. 1, ECF No. 127.) Plaintiff proposes that he be granted single

cell status while the documents are in his possession to ensure that no other inmate have access to

the documents. 

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,

In the discovery and scheduling order issued August 20, 2009, the parties were informed that the

2

requirements of Rule 26, that the parties meet and confer, shall not apply in this action. (ECF No. 35.)

3

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 3 of 10
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

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The court has

broad discretion to decide when it is appropriate to issue a protective order and the degree of

protection required. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211

(9th Cir. 2002). Upon review of the documents provided by Defendants, the Court finds two

categories of information that need to be addressed: the training records and personnel records

containing confidential personal information, and those documents containing information that

implicates the safety and security of the institution. 

Certain information will be redacted from the training and personnel records. The personal

identifying information, such as Social Security Numbers, date of birth, address, etc. of individuals,

is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this action, and this information can be redacted without

affecting the substance of the information included in the documents. Therefore, given the privacy

and security concerns of this information and the lack of probative value, Social Security Numbers

and other confidential personal information of CDCR employees shall be redacted prior to

documents being provided to Plaintiff. The redacted training and personnel records are not subject

to the limitations in the Protective Order and shall be produced directly to Plaintiff. 

The second category of documents will be subject to a protective order. Defendants argue

that the Use of Force Policy is confidential due to the safety and security concerns of the institution,

and a Protective Order is necessary to protect the staff and inmates who work and live in the SHU. 

The defendants provided the “Use of Force Instructor’s Guide” for in camera review in response to

Plaintiff’s Request for Production. Rather than setting forth the Use of Force Policy, the document

is a training manual and discusses how to respond to different situations that could confront a

correctional officer within the Use of Force Policy. The Court has reviewed the document and finds

that the probative value of the Instructor’s Guide is greatly outweighed by the security risk to the

institution if this information were disclosed to the inmate population. Therefore, the Court finds

that good cause exists to issue a Protective Order for the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide. Since the

allegations in this action do not involve the use of deadly force or mechanical restraints, those

portions of the document that deal with use of deadlyforce and mechanical restraints are not relevant

and will not be ordered produced. Finally, in weighing the limited probative value of the Use of

4

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 4 of 10
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

Force Training Video against the safety and security concerns of the prison, the Court finds that the

potentially relevant information is encompassed in the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, and the

Training Video shall not be ordered produced. Based upon these findings, Defendants shall be

ordered to produce the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, up to and including Objective 6 on page 27,

and the Use of Force Policy Test Question Nos. 1 through 6, subject to the Protective Order.

Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order is unnecessary and proposes that he be granted

single cell status to avoid a cellmate having access to the documents. Plaintiff argues he will agree

not to copy or show the documents to non-witness inmates. While Plaintiff states he will agree not

to copy the documents or allow any other inmate to see them unless they are a witness in this action,

these conditions do not show that the Protective Order is unnecessary, but indicate Plaintiff’s

willingness to stipulate to a protective order. 

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief directing him to be single cell status in

order to have the documents in his possession, the Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations

on injunctive relief. Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective reliefin anycivil

action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no furtherthan necessaryto correct the violation

of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any

prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to

correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The relief requested by

Plaintiff is not related to the underlying claims that Defendants used excessive force and failed to

protect him. Since the reliefsought would not remedy the violation of the Federal right at issue here,

the Court cannot grant the requested relief. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order is vague and ambiguous as to a reasonable

amount of time for him to review the documents. To address Plaintiff’s concern regarding “a

reasonable amount of time,” the Court shall order that Plaintiff be allowed one hour to review the

portion of the Use of Force Policy Instructor’s Guide that has been ordered to be produced and take

notes. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted and the protective order shall issue as follows. 

///

5

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 5 of 10
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

C. Protective Order

Defendants shall produce the confidential material, subject to this Protective Order on the

following conditions:

1. The Social Security Numbers and any other confidential personal information of the

CDCR employees shall be redacted.

2. Prior notice as required by Civil Code section 1798.24 (k) shall be given to individuals

whose names or other identifying information are disclosed in the material.

3. The Use of Force Instructor’s Guide may be submitted to the possession of the following

persons:

(a) The Litigation Coordinator at the institution where Plaintiff is now housed;

(b) Counsel for Plaintiff in this action, should Plaintiff acquire counsel;

(c) Paralegal, stenographic, clerical and secretarial personnel regularly employed by

counsel for Plaintiff;

(d) Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings as are

incidental to the preparation for the trial in this action;

(e) Any outside expert or consultant retained by Plaintiffs’ counsel for purposes of

this action;

(f) Witnesses to whom the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide may be disclosed during

the preparation for trial and trial, provided that no witness may have copies of the Use of Force

Instructor’s Guide or Plaintiff’s notes regarding the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, and each

witness shall be informed and agree to be bound by the terms of this order. 

4. Plaintiff will be allowed to review the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, but he may not

retain the document in his possession. Plaintiff shall be allowed one hour to review the Use of Force

Instructor’s Guide in the Litigation Coordinator’s presence and take notes. In addition, Plaintiff may

not disclose to or discuss this material with any other inmate, nor may any other inmate review or

have possession of, any material produced pursuant to the Court’s Order or Plaintiff’s notes

regarding the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide. Counsel for the Defendants acknowledges that such

access would constitute a violation of Title 15, California Code of Regulations, § 3370(b) and would

6

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 6 of 10
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

compromise the safety and security of the institution.

5. Plaintiff may take notes, but shall not make copies of the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide.

6. All confidential material in possession of the Litigation Coordinator shall be destroyed

or returned to the Defendants’ counsel no later than twenty days after trial of this matter, or sooner

if the Litigation Coordinator concludes the material is no longer needed for Plaintiff’s review.

7. Upon final judgment or resolution of any appeal, Plaintiff or his counsel shall return or

destroythe Use of Force Instructor’s Guide or notes on the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, and shall

provide Defendants’ counsel with a declaration stating all confidential material has been returned

or destroyed.

8. No confidential material obtained by Plaintiff or his counsel shall be disclosed except as

is necessary in connection with this or related litigation, including appeals, and not for any other

purpose, including any other litigation.

9. Anyconfidential material filed with the Court byeither partyshall be filed and maintained

under seal.

10. Any violation of this Protective Order may be punishable as Contempt of Court.

11. Nothing in this Protective Order is intended to prevent officials or employees of the State

of California, or other authorized government officials, from having access to confidential material

to which they would have access in the normal course of their official duties.

12. The provisions of this Protective Order are without prejudice to the right of any party:

(a) To apply to the Court for a further protective order relating to any confidential

material or relating to discovery in this litigation;

(b) To apply to the Court for an orderremoving the confidential material designation

from any documents;

(c) To object to a discovery request.

12. The provisions of this order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of

this Court.

///

///

7

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 7 of 10
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

III. Order

Accordingly it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Modification of the Order Re In Camera Review, filed

September 15, 2011, is DENIED;

2. Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, filed October 3, 2011, is GRANTED;

3. The proposed orders set forth in the Order Re In Camera Review of the documents

filed under seal for in camera review, issued September 1, 2011, are adopted as

follows:

a. The employee use of force training records, Attachment 1, are to be produced

with any indicia of personal information, other than the employee name,

redacted;

b. With the exception of the WOTS Rainbow Report, the personnel records,

Attachment 2, are to be produced with any indicia of personal information,

other than the employee name, redacted;

c. Defendants shall not produce a copy of the appeal inquiries, Attachment 3. 

A summary of the appeal inquires is attached herein as Exhibit A;

d. The Incident Report Package Tracking Log, Attachment 4, shall not be

produced as it is too remote to the alleged incidents to be relevant in this

action;

e. The Use of Force Instructor’s Guide, up to and including Objective 6 on page

27, and the Use of Force Policy Test Question Nos. 1 through 6 shall be

produced, subject to the Protective Order, and kept in the care of custody of

the institution’s Litigation Coordinator. The Litigation Coordinator shall

make arrangements for Plaintiff to have one hour to review the Use of Force

Policy and Test Questions, in the presence of the Litigation Coordinator. 

Plaintiff may take notes of relevant portions of the Use of Force Instructor’s

Guide and Test Questions, but no copy of the Use of Force Instructor’s Guide

or Test Questions shall be provided to Plaintiff; 

8

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 8 of 10
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

f. California Code of Regulations, Title 15, is equallyaccessible to Plaintiff and

need not be produced; and

4. Defendants shall identify the document requests for which the documents are

responsive. 

5. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall produce

documents responsive to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT A

Inmate Appeals from January 22, 2005 through January 22, 2009

Defendant Named Date of

Appeal/Incident

Inmate, CDCR # Complaint Conclusion

David and M. Melo 05/15/2005 Bachman Assault/threats Not Sustained

R. Miranda 04/04/2005 Blakes Rough body search Not Sustained

David 04/23/2005 Vergara, P-18218 Unnecessary force Not Sustained

Ruiz 06/06/2005 Perry, K-99205 Assault Not Sustained

David and Miranda 12/14/2005 Garcia, T-88303 Unnecessary force Not Sustained

David, Masiel, and Mendoza 05/23/2006 Lamon, E-08345 Assault Not Sustained

M. Melo and Mendoza 08/08/2006 Fisher, H-54073 Threats/retaliation Not Sustained 

Ruiz 01/27/2007 Estrada, T-42165 Assault Not Sustained

David, M. Melo, and Mendoza 03/19/2007 Malbrue, P-89050 Aggressive use of handcuffs;

released inmate causing him

to fall; pepper spray

Not Sustained 

M. Melo 06/29/2007 Rogers, P-75155 Aggressive use of handcuffs Not Sustained

David and Miranda 10/05/2007 Mitchell, T-74082 Assault Not Sustained

M. Melo 04/22/2008 Thompson, T-14323 Removed wheelchair causing

fall

Not Sustained

David 07/21/2008 Taylor, C-05467 Pepper spray Not Sustained

M. Melo 01/05/2009 Gherardi, K-78141 Assault Not Sustained

M. Melo 01/14/2009 Beltran, E-54239 Assault; pepper spray Not Sustained

10

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 130 Filed 03/16/12 Page 10 of 10