Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05953/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05953-16/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

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5953-AWI-DLB-P

FURTHER ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

DISCOVERY

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed

December 22, 2004, against defendants A. Diaz, E. Lawton, G. Tracy, D. Beebe, Kraay (named

incorrectly as Traay), D. Bailey, Bryant, D. Case, M. Botello and Dr. Dang. Plaintiff claims

defendants used excessive, failed to protect him and were deliberately indifferent to his medical

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff also claims defendants interfered with his

access to the courts between April 17, 2002 and May 25, 2002 by withholding his legal mail. On

October 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to Request for Admissions he served

on defendants Diaz and Laton. Plaintiff also moved to compel production of documents. 

On July 9, 2007, the Court granted the motion in part and ordered defendants to produce

documents. The Court also ordered defendants to provide further detail supporting their objection

to Request Nos. 10 -14 and their contention that the safety and security of the prison would be

jeopardized if they produced copies of defendants’ post orders. On July 26, 2007, defendants

provided a response to the Court’s order. On August 6, 2007, plaintiff filed an objection to

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 118 Filed 01/30/08 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

defendants’ response. Defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s objection on August 10, 2007. 

In Request Numbers 10 through 14, plaintiff seeks “post orders” for defendants in their

respective assignments. Defendants objected to these requests on the grounds that the information,

if released, may jeopardize the safety and security of the institution, the inmates, or the staff. In their

further response, defendants explain that their post orders are a detailed description of the individual

duties and responsibilities assigned to a posted position. For example, the post orders for a housing

unit control booth officer on first watch, are different from the post orders for a control booth officer

in the same housing unit on second watch. See Defendant’s Further Objection to production of Post

Orders, Ex. A. Post orders also include a time schedule of work related tasks, information about the

physical location ofthe position, mandatory security checks, security telephone call routines and the

employee’s responsibilities during an emergency. Id.

 Defendants contend the post orders are confidential because the information contained in

the orders can be used to circumvent security procedures. Defendants contend that disclosing the

information could allow inmates to conduct illegal activities outside of staff’s view, monitor staff

member’s whereabouts and activities, learn the identity of staff responsible for responding to an

emergency at a particular location, learn the time and manner in which weapons are moved to and

from armed posts and other information which could be used to jeopardize the safety and security

of the institution, other inmates and staff. Id.

Defendants have provided sufficient support for their objection to production of the post

orders. The Court is satisfied that production of the post orders could jeopardize the safety and

security of the institution. In response, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate actual and substantial

prejudice from the denial of the documents. Plaintiff fails to explain why the post orders are relevant

and only makes the conclusory statement that they “are not confidential.” Given the sensitive nature

of the information, the Court finds that the potential dangers which could result from disclosure,

outweigh plaintiff’s need for the discvoery. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Request

Numbers 10-14 is therefore DENIED.

The Court finds that the discvoery disputes in this action are now sufficiently resolved. Fed.

Civ. P. 56(f); Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518-19 (9th Cir. 1987).

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 118 Filed 01/30/08 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

Plaintiff is ordered to file his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment within 45 days

of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 30, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05953-LJO-EPG Document 118 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 3