Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01101/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01101-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John Roettgen,

Plaintiff,

v.

Foston, et al,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13cv1101-GPC-BGS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force against him on May 5,

2011, and then retaliated against him when he reported the excessive force. (ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff served discovery seeking a broad range of documents. Defendants produced a 

number of documents, but objected to Plaintiff’s document requests that sought unrelated 

grievances from third-party inmates, Defendants’ disciplinary records, internal affairs 

reports, and reprimands. (Declaration of Christopher H. Findley in Support of Defs.’ 

Opp’n to Mot. for Reconsideration (Findley Decl.) ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff moved to compel further production of documents, and Defendants 

opposed. (ECF Nos. 83, 84.) The Court subsequently issued an order requiring 

Defendants to produce “all disciplinary records, internal affairs reports and/or 

investigations, CDCR 602 complaints, grievances, and/or reprimands that involve 

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 123 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 5
2

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

allegations of excessive force, retaliation, or untruthful conduct involving each of the 

Defendants throughout the course of their employment at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility.” (ECF No. 92 at 17-18.) The Court then analyzed Defendants’ 

objections based on privacy concerns and “acknowledge[d] that these documents may 

contain private information such as social security numbers and addresses.” (Id. at 10.) 

The Court continued:

Importantly, any invasion of the Defendants’ privacy interests can be 

mitigated through a protective order (Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617) and by 

redacting sensitive information. See Lamon v. Adams, 2010 WL 4513405, at 

*3–4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010) (ordering redaction of the names of the 

inmates who filed grievances against correctional officer before documents 

were provided to plaintiff). These measures will greatly reduce the invasion 

of privacy that would occur with production of the documents at issue.

(Id.) The Court then granted “Defendants permission to redact any sensitive information 

from all documents prior to disclosure.” (Id.)

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 95.) 

The Motion requested that the grievances be produced with the names of the inmates 

filing the grievances. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff argued that the identity of the inmates was 

necessary because he “may need to track down the authors in order to obtain details and 

their willingness to testify.” (Id.) Plaintiff also sought to expand the Court’s definition 

of “untruthful conduct” to allegations of filing false reports to cover up misconduct, 

failure to protect, and keeping investigations internalized. (Id. at 2-3.) 

The Court ordered Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion by July 8, 

2016, and ordered Plaintiff to file a reply by July 22, 2016. (ECF No. 101.)

///

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 123 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 5
3

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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. RELEVANT LAW

The law of the case doctrine is a judicial invention designed to aid in the efficient 

operation of court affairs. Lockert v. United States Dept. of Labor, 867 F.2d 513, 518 

(9th Cir. 1989). Under the doctrine, a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an 

issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case. 

Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir. 1988), amended, 860 F.2d 357 

(9th Cir. 1988). For the doctrine to apply, the issue in question must have been “decided 

explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition.” Liberty Mutual Ins. 

Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982); accord Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 

880 F.2d 149, 157 (9th Cir. 1989).

A court may have discretion to reopen a previously resolved question under one or 

more of the following circumstances: (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an 

intervening change in the law has occurred; (3) the evidence on remand is substantially 

different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise 

result. Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1993).

IV. CLARIFICATION REGARDING REDACTION OF INMATES’

NAMES

Plaintiff appears to seek clarification regarding whether the Court ordered 

Defendants to redact the names of the inmates who filed grievances produced in 

discovery. Defendants explain that they took the Court’s language “grant[ing] 

Defendants’ permission to redact sensitive information from all documents prior to 

disclosure” to include the names of the inmates. (Findley Decl. ¶ 4.) However, because 

the order did not explicitly require the Defendants to redact the names of the inmates, 

Defendants do not object to the Court reconsidering its order in that respect. (ECF No. 

106 at 4.) 

For the law of the case doctrine to apply, the issue in question must have been 

“decided explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition.” Liberty 

Mutual Ins. Co., 691 F.2d at 441. To the extent this Court’s prior order was not explicit 

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 123 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 5
4

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

on the issue of redaction, the Court now clarifies that it did intend for Defendants to 

redact the names of the inmates filing grievances when it allowed for the redacting of 

sensitive information. Without knowing what the documents said, the Court properly 

balanced Plaintiff’s need for the information with the privacy interests of the individual 

inmates. 

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff wants this Court to reconsider allowing the 

inmates’ names to be redacted, that request is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion could be 

interpreted as arguing that, because he has now received the documents from Defendants, 

this constitutes a changed circumstance warranting reconsideration of this Court’s order 

allowing for inmates’ names to be redacted. However, Plaintiff has not made a specific 

showing that any documents support a re-balancing of factors in his favor, such that the

privacy interest held by any inmate would be outweighed by the relevance of that 

information to Plaintiff’s claims. Other than supplying the Court with hundreds of 

documents produced by Defendants, Plaintiff has not identified a single incident 

evidenced by those documents that would compel this Court to override its prior order 

allowing for redaction of inmates’ names. The Court will not sanction a carte-blanche 

disclosure of every inmate’s name in Defendants’ production. That would allow for 

precisely the type of fishing expedition the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seek to 

avoid. 

Plaintiff has not made a specific showing that would warrant disclosing the identity 

of any inmates named in Defendants’ production. As a result, Defendants need not 

supplement their production to disclose any inmates’ names. 

V. CLARIFICATION REGARDING “UNTRUTHFUL CONDUCT”

The Court ordered Defendants to produce inmate grievances, internal affairs

investigations, and disciplinary reports involving allegations of excessive force,

retaliation, or untruthful conduct. (ECF No. 92 at 17-18.) Plaintiff asks this court to

expand the definition of untruthful conduct to include (1) filing false reports to include 

investigative reports and inmate disciplinary; (2) filing false reports so as to cover up 

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 123 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 5
5

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

misconduct; (3) failure to protect; and (4) keeping investigations internalized in order to 

prevent outside discovery. (ECF no. 95 at 3.) 

Without agreeing that these definitions are appropriate, Defendants represented as 

follows: “in producing inmate grievances, internal affairs investigations, and disciplinary 

reports involving allegations of excessive force, retaliation, or untruthful conduct, 

Defendants did not withhold, and produced all grievances, internal affairs investigations, 

and disciplinary reports that related to (1) allegations of filing false reports, including (2) 

reports to cover up misconduct; (3) allegations of failure to protect; and (4) allegations of 

keeping investigations internalized in order to prevent outside discovery. (Findley Decl. 

¶ 5.)

Without endorsing Plaintiff’s expanded definition of the term “untruthful,” the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for clarification of the term is MOOT. Even under 

Plaintiff’s definition, Defendants state that they have produced all relevant documents. 

The Court cannot compel production of documents that have already been produced. 

VI. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration DENIED. The Court clarifies that it did 

intend for the inmates’ names to be redacted in its original order. The Court still finds 

that Defendants are not required to disclose the names of the inmates who filed any 

grievances produced to Plaintiff in discovery. 

As for Plaintiff’s request for an expanded definition of the term “untruthful,” the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s request is MOOT because Defendants represented that they 

have produced all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s expanded definition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 1, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 123 Filed 09/01/16 Page 5 of 5