Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01461-7/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

ANDREW W. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. FLORES, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01461 AWI DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[ECF No. 65]

Plaintiff Andrew Martin (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 8, 2014, Defendants moved for a protective order to limit the disclosure of a 

confidential report. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. The matter is deemed submitted 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, “the court may, 

for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). To demonstrate good 

cause, the moving party must make a clear showing of a particular and specific need for the 

order. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 

Here, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents on November 25, 2013. 

The Court partially granted and partially denied the motion on July 10, 2014. Defendants were 

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 71 Filed 09/19/14 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

directed to produce certain documents. With respect to Request No. 6 of Plaintiff’s Request for 

Production of Documents, as modified by the Court in its order regarding Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel, Defendants were ordered to produce all written incident reports relating to Plaintiff’s 

excessive force and deliberate indifference claims. Defendants state they are in possession of a 

confidential report which may be responsive. The report relates to an investigation conducted 

into inmate Rodriguez, who was charged with battering Plaintiff on January 4, 2011. Defendants 

claim the report contains confidential information concerning statements made by two inmate 

witnesses who were near Plaintiff when he was attacked. Defendants assert that providing the 

report could compromise the safety of the two inmates and of the institution as a whole. 

Defendants further allege that the document contains no information that would be relevant to 

any of the claims or defenses in this case. 

The Court has reviewed the confidential report and agrees with Defendants. The report 

does not provide any information that would be useful to either party with respect to Plaintiff’s 

allegations in his complaint. The report details the informants’ witness accounts of inmate 

Rodriguez’s attack on Plaintiff. However, Defendants do not dispute that Rodriguez attacked 

Plaintiff. The essence of Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Flores is that Flores should not have 

sprayed Plaintiff with pepper spray because Plaintiff was in a dazed and confused state. There is 

no mention of Flores in the confidential report and there is no information as to Flores’ response 

to the attack and his use of pepper spray. There is nothing in the report which could be used to 

support Plaintiff’s claim. 

On the other hand, disclosure of the report could substantially compromise the safety of 

the confidential informants and affect the ability of correctional staff to maintain institutional 

security. Def.’s Mot. for Protective Order, Steele Decl. ¶¶ 3-13. Accordingly, the Court finds 

good cause for granting defendant’s motion for a protective order. See Wood v. McEwen, 644 

F2d. 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 1981). 

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 71 Filed 09/19/14 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

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for 

protective order is GRANTED. Defendants’ are not required to disclose the confidential report 

referenced herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01461-AWI-DLB Document 71 Filed 09/19/14 Page 3 of 3