Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01473-3/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

1Defendants’ request for reconsideration of the protective order is particularly dubious in

light of the fact that the protective order was wholly fashioned from defendants’ own proposed

order with the only modification made by the magistrate judge clarifying and making explicit the

negative ramifications for plaintiff should he be tempted to divulge any information with respect

to confidential informants in inmate Stringfellow’s prison file. To the extent that defendants

seek to argue that it was implicit that identification of confidential informants would be redacted

from the file, this constitutes the second time defendants have sought to disavow their own

filings in this case. Moreover, the need for identification of individuals to prove the facts

established by those persons is obvious. If defendants concede the information provided by any

confidential informant in Stringfellow’s central file as an uncontested matter, only then would

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE O. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1473 LKK GGH P

vs.

M.R. MALDONADO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 24, 2005, defendants filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s order filed June 22, 2005, denying defendants’ motion to amend on the ground that it is

clearly erroneous. In addition, defendants request reconsideration of the protective order filed

June 22, 2005, only to the extent that it may be interpreted as requiring defendants to disclose

information that would identify and threaten the safety of confidential inmate informants.1

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 70 Filed 08/15/05 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

the need be obviated for plaintiff to have access to the identification of any such individuals as

possible trial witnesses in this matter.

2

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that

it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge filed June 22, 2005, is affirmed. 

DATED: August 15, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/smit1473.850(1)

Case 2:02-cv-01473-LKK -GGH Document 70 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2