Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00397-25/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

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

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. MARQUEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG-PC

SCHEDULING ORDER FOLLOWING 

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE HELD ON 

APRIL 28, 2016

ORDER FOR PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE 

IN DISCOVERY AS INSTRUCTED BY 

THIS ORDER

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AS MOOT

(ECF No. 135.)

Telephonic Status Conference

July 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Courtroom 10 (EPG)

Defendants’ Status Report Due: 

July 5, 2016

Settlement Conference: 

August 3, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.

Courtroom 10 (EPG)

Confidential Settlement Conference

Statements Due: July 27, 2016

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing:

August 19, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom 2 (AWI)

JURY TRIAL:

September 27, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 2 (AWI)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 138 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 6
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

Complaint commencing this case on March 8, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds 

with the First Amended Complaint filed on June 29, 2012, against defendants Correctional 

Officer (C/O) Amador, C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and C/O Ralph Nunez for use of 

excessive force; and against defendants C/O Daniel Nava, C/O R. Marquez, and Sergeant J. 

Ybarra, for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 13.) 

This case is scheduled for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Erica P. 

Grosjean on August 3, 2016. This case is also scheduled for a telephonic trial confirmation

hearing on August 19, 2016, and jury trial on September 27, 2016, before District Judge 

Anthony W. Ishii.

II. DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

On April 28, 2016 at 10:30 a.m., an informal telephonic discovery conference was held 

before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf, 

and California Deputy Attorney General Allison M. Low appeared telephonically on behalf of 

Defendants. The parties discussed the status of discovery.

A. Defendants’ Request for Witness Names and Statements

At the prior status conference on April 6, 2016 in this case, “Plaintiff was advised that 

he must turn over his evidence concerning witnesses, including any witness statements or 

declarations, to Defendants as soon as possible.” (ECF No. 133 at 3:3-4.) Plaintiff has now 

provided to Defendants a list of four witnesses and two witness statements, and agreed to 

provide any other witness information that may be found. Plaintiff also provided photographs 

of his injuries and evidence that defendant Marquez’s wife attempted to interfere with the 

investigation. Defendants indicated that this discovery issue is now resolved.

B. Plaintiff’s Request for Duty Roster and Post Orders

Plaintiff previously requested a Duty Roster, and Defendants previously responded that 

they searched for the Roster and did not find it. At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that he has a 

copy of a redacted Duty Roster that was provided to him in prior criminal proceedings, and he 

seeks an unredacted copy. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to discuss why 

Defendants could not find the Duty Roster. Plaintiff shall provide a copy of the relevant 

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 138 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 6
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

portions of the redacted Duty Roster to Defendants by May 5, 2016. Defendants shall provide 

the relevant portions of the unredacted Duty Roster to Plaintiff by May 19, 2016, or their 

statement of efforts to locate such roster and why it could not be located, if applicable.

At the hearing, Plaintiff requested records of names of officers assigned to Second 

Watch duty on May 22, 2007 in Buildings 5, 7, and 8. Defense counsel indicated she believed 

she could provide these records. Defense counsel shall provide Plaintiff with copies of the 

records by May 19, 2016.

Plaintiff also renewed a request for post orders. Defendants indicated their belief that 

this request was resolved in earlier discovery, but Plaintiff stated that he did not receive all of 

the post orders. The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer about the post orders. 

Defendants shall provide the remaining post orders to Plaintiff by May 19, 2016.

D. Plaintiff’s Request for Operations Policy and Procedures

Plaintiff previously requested copies of the confidential Operations Policy and 

Procedures regarding the control of evidence. Defendants previously produced the relevant 

section of the Department Operations Manual and objected to further production because the 

information is confidential and subject to the Official Information Privilege. The Court1denied 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to this request because Plaintiff had not 

established that the information is relevant, and because such information in the hands of an 

inmate raises safety and security concerns. (ECF No. 109 at 13:1-6.) 

At the hearing, Plaintiff renewed his request for the Policies and Procedures in force on 

May 22, 2007, addressing how officers were supposed to preserve evidence following use-offorce incidents, how officers were supposed to respond to such incidents, which use-of-force 

reports should be made, and how the reports should be preserved. Plaintiff seeks policies and 

procedures specific to Kern Valley State Prison and to each job assignment, not general 

information found in Title 15. The Court found that the requested information is relevant to 

///

 

1 The prior order, granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel of September 8, 2014, was issued 

by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on May 18, 2015. (ECF No. 109.)

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 138 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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 claims. Defendants shall provide the described information to Plaintiff by May 19, 

2016.

E. Plaintiff’s Request for Office of Internal Affairs’ Report of Investigation

Plaintiff previously requested records of the Office of Internal Affairs’ investigation of 

the May 22, 2007 incident at issue. Defendants previously objected to the request on the

grounds that the information is subject to the Official Information Privilege, and because 

Plaintiff had made this same request earlier in discovery. Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin

denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel because Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of informing the 

Court why the objections are not meritorious, and because the request is overly broad. (ECF 

No. 109 at 12:7-15.) Judge Austin did not rule on the merits of the privilege.

Plaintiff renewed his request at the hearing, and the Court found that records of 

interviews and opinions concerning the investigation are relevant. The Court also advised the 

parties that the Official Information Privilege is not a blanket privilege, and it requires a 

balancing that takes public safety issues into account. Defendants argued that producing the 

information raises safety and security concerns for prison staff, and all of the records of the 

investigation are not relevant to this case. Defendants argued that producing the interviews 

would raise public safety concerns and could place other inmates at risk, because the interviews 

contain information provided confidentially. 

Plaintiff argued that Defendants had waived the Official Information Privilege for the 

photos, because Defendants used similar photos as evidence in support of their motion for 

summary judgment. Defendants argued that they had not waived the privilege because the 

photos they used were taken specifically for the motion for summary judgment. 

The Court did not rule on the applicability of the Official Information Privilege question 

at the hearing, and the parties are not precluded from raising the issue again. Defendants shall 

produce the Office of Internal Affairs’ investigation documents, including (1) interviews of 

witnesses (not confidential informants), (2) interviews of confidential informants, (3) official 

reports showing what was found in the investigation, which concluded that Defendants were 

not at fault, and (4) photographs made in the course of and as a result of the investigation. By 

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 138 Filed 05/16/16 Page 4 of 6
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

May 19, 2016, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff any of these documents considered 

unprivileged, informing Plaintiff which documents were withheld as privileged. Defendants 

shall submit all privileged documents to the Court for in camera review by May 19, 2016, and 

shall concurrently file a motion arguing how the privilege applies to specific investigative 

materials, without discussing any confidential information in the motion. Plaintiff may respond 

to the motion within two weeks, no later than June 2, 2016. 

F. Plaintiff’s Letter to the Court

Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court on April 14, 2016 which the Court filed as a 

motion for protective order. (ECF No. 135.) In the letter, Plaintiff discusses conditions of his 

confinement at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he was transferred on April 8, 2016. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to various forms of retaliation, such as confiscation 

and destruction of his property and placement in a cell with severe plumbing problems and a 

urine odor. Defendants asserted that at the April 22, 2016 hearing, Plaintiff clarified that he did 

not intend to file a formal motion for protective order, he was not missing any legal materials 

necessary for his handling of this case, and he did not need any action taken at this time. 

Plaintiff did not disagree with Defendants’ assertion. Therefore, the motion for protective 

order shall be denied as moot. The Court advised Plaintiff that he may file a new case to bring 

a retaliation claim, if he wishes.

G. Next Status Conference Scheduled for July 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

The Court scheduled another telephonic status conference for this case, to be held on 

July 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The parties are required 

to meet and confer about discovery issues before the conference. Defendants shall file a report 

discussing the status of discovery, no later than July 5, 2016. Plaintiff is not required to file a 

report, but if he so chooses, he may file a report no later than July 5, 2016. Counsel for 

Defendants is required to arrange for the participation of Plaintiff in the telephonic conference 

and to initiate the telephonic conference at (559) 499-5960.

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 138 Filed 05/16/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall participate in discovery as directed by this order;

2. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for July 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in 

Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean;

3. Counsel for Defendants is required to arrange for the participation of Plaintiff in 

the telephonic conference and to initiate the telephonic conference at (559) 499-

5960;

4. The parties are required to meet and confer outside of Court, before the July 6, 

2016 conference, to discuss discovery issues as instructed by this order;

5. On or before July 5, 2016, Defendants are required to file a status report 

informing the Court of the status of discovery in this case;

6. Plaintiff’s status report, if any, discussing the status of discovery, is due on or 

before July 5, 2016;

7. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for August 3, 2016 at 10:30 a.m., before 

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean in Courtroom 10 at the United States 

Courthouse, Sixth Floor, Courtroom 10, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California;

8. The parties shall refer to the Court’s order of April 8, 2016, for information 

concerning their appearances at the Settlement Conference;

9. A telephonic trial confirmation hearing is scheduled for August 19, 2016 at 

1:30 p.m. before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii in Courtroom 2; and 

10. Jury trial for this case is scheduled to commence on September 27, 2016 at 

8:30 a.m. before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii in Courtroom 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00397-AWI-EPG Document 138 Filed 05/16/16 Page 6 of 6