Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00939/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00939-29/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARRYL L. HUBBARD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C.D. HOUGLAND, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:09-cv-0939 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s motions for a gag order and to 

compel discovery. ECF Nos. 170, 171. 

I. Motion for Gag Order 

In his motion for a “gag order,” plaintiff requests that the court issue an order preventing 

defendants attorneys 

from revealing, discussing, or relating any part of plaintiff’s Exhibit 

list, or from giving any indications to the defendants themselves, on 

how plaintiff is going to conduct his case, based on anything in 

plaintiff’s pretrial statement, or the fact that plaintiff has motioned 

the court for a gag order in the first place. 

ECF No. 170 at 2. Plaintiff asserts that this request is made based on fear for his safety. Id. The 

court construes the motion for a “gag order” as a motion for protective order. Defendants oppose 

//// 

Case 2:09-cv-00939-TLN-AC Document 180 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

the motion on the grounds that plaintiff has not met his burden for obtaining a protective order. 

ECF No. 174. 

In order to obtain a protective order limiting to whom documents are disclosed, the 

moving party must show good cause for the restriction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “The party 

opposing disclosure has the burden of proving ‘good cause,’ which requires a showing ‘that 

specific prejudice or harm will result’ if the protective order is not granted.” In re Roman 

Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Foltz v. 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). “‘Broad allegations of 

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) 

test.’” Beckman Indust., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting 

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986)). 

Plaintiff’s only articulated reason for requesting the protective order is that he fears for his 

safety from defendants and their co-workers due to past misconduct. ECF No. 170. Not only are 

plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct broad and non-specific, but plaintiff is no longer in the 

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), making any 

claims of retaliation tenuous at best. Plaintiff has failed to point to any specific harm that he will 

suffer if defendants’ counsel is permitted to communicate with his clients regarding plaintiff’s 

trial exhibits and pretrial statement. 

Additionally, as defendants point out, the majority of plaintiff’s exhibits, as identified in 

his pretrial statement, are documents created by public entities, most of which are available 

publicly online. ECF No. 172 at 7-8, Exhibits 1-10, 13. To the extent plaintiff seeks to prevent 

defendants’ counsel from discussing public agency documents with his clients, especially those 

made available online to the general public, the court finds no good cause for such a restriction. 

The court also finds no good cause for preventing defendants’ counsel from discussing “old news 

reports” with his clients. Id. at 8, Exhibit 16. Plaintiff’s other listed exhibits include his CDCR 

medical records and healthcare appeal. Id., Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 15. To the extent plaintiff’s 

medical records and healthcare appeal deal with injuries he allegedly suffered as a result of 

defendants’ use of force, plaintiff has put his injuries at issue by bringing this lawsuit and he has 

Case 2:09-cv-00939-TLN-AC Document 180 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

not established any good cause for preventing counsel from discussing those records and alleged 

injuries with his clients. 

Plaintiff’s request that defense counsel also be prevented from discussing with his clients 

how plaintiff plans to conduct his case, based on his pretrial statement and motion for a gag order, 

is also unsupported by any good cause. Both documents are publicly filed and it is counsel’s 

responsibility to properly prepare his clients for trial. It would be unsurprising if such preparation 

necessarily included discussing with his clients what to expect from plaintiff at trial. Plaintiff 

provides no good cause for restricting defendants’ communications with their counsel and 

preventing them from participating fully in their defense against plaintiff’s allegations. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a protective order will be denied. 

II. Motion to Compel 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel discovery items. ECF No. 171. Specifically, 

he seeks to compel (1) a replacement of the use of force training video, (2) a copy of the video of 

his interview conducted by Sgt. Thompson, and (3) the remainder of defendant Hougland’s 

misconduct history. Id. Discovery in this matter closed on September 3, 2013. ECF No. 120 at 

5. There was a limited re-opening of discovery in order to complete discovery in accordance with 

the March 18, 2014 order on plaintiff’s motion to compel, and limited discovery closed on 

December 1, 2014, when defendants served their supplemental responses. ECF Nos. 133, 146, 

148. 

Since defendants have represented that they will provide plaintiff with another copy of the 

use of force training video (ECF No. 175 at 5), the motion as to this request will be denied as 

moot. 

With respect to the video of plaintiff’s interview, defendants state that plaintiff’s records 

reflect that he was given an opportunity to view the recorded interview. ECF No. 175 at 4. It 

appears that plaintiff was incarcerated at that time. Id. Plaintiff has not previously raised issues 

with the response to this production request (ECF No. 123) and if plaintiff sought to compel 

production of a physical copy of the interview upon his release from prison, the time for doing so 

has long since passed as plaintiff has been out of CDCR custody since at least October 10, 2012 

Case 2:09-cv-00939-TLN-AC Document 180 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

(ECF No. 108), and discovery closed on September 3, 2013 (ECF No. 120 at 5). 

As for the request for the remainder of defendant Hougland’s misconduct history, it 

appears that plaintiff is alleging that defendants failed to fully comply with the March 18, 2014 

discovery order. Defendants provided their supplemental responses on December 1, 2014, nearly 

two years ago (ECF No. 148) and plaintiff offers no explanation for the delay in bringing the 

alleged deficiency to the court (ECF No. 171). Moreover, the court’s order only required 

defendant Hougland to produce “documentation to which he has access at HDSP or any other 

CDCR facility or located within his own personnel file” (ECF No. 133 at 12), and defendants 

state that they have provided documentation as far back within the required timeframe as they can 

access (ECF No. 175 at 5). 

For the reasons addressed above, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a gag order (ECF No. 170) is construed as a motion for a 

protective order and is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 171) is denied. 

DATED: October 18, 2016 

Case 2:09-cv-00939-TLN-AC Document 180 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 4