Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01622-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

KEENAN WILKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S. HESLOP, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-01622 DJC SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Keenan Wilkins, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with civil rights claims under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. On August 19. 2024, the undersigned issued an order 

granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on June 7, 2024. (ECF Nos. 

62, 73.) The undersigned also ordered defendants to submit for in camera review the 

documents responsive to plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 2 and 4. 

(ECF No. 73 at 10.) Defendants have submitted the documents for in camera review and moved 

for a protective order. (ECF No. 74, 75.) 

I. Document Production 

The court has reviewed the responsive documents at issue, described as follows in 

defendants’ privilege log: 

CDCR Form 3013-2 (Inmate Interview for Allegation Worksheet) 

for appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 76 Filed 09/09/24 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 

CDCR Form 3014 (Report of Findings—Inmate Interview) for 

appeal log no. CHCF-E-19-00132 

Confidential Appeal Inquiry Supplement to appeal log no. CHCF-E19-00132 

(ECF No. 69-1 at 9.) Defendants objected to production on official information privilege and 

right to privacy grounds and asked the court to consider state law on privilege to the extent it is 

consistent with federal law. (See ECF No. 69 at 6-9.) 

 The court has reviewed the documents at issue and finds they should be disclosed to 

plaintiff without redaction.1 The documents contain witness statements which are relevant to the 

claims and defenses in this action within the meaning of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The documents do not reveal any institutional secrets. To the extent the documents 

may reveal a procedure for investigation, it is merely the fact that an investigation was conducted 

in which evidence was gathered from witness statements and used to render a decision. 

Considering the privacy rights of the witnesses identified in the documents, the need for 

the information sought based on its relevance to the claims and defenses outweighs the privacy 

right asserted. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 

(9th Cir. 1976) (balancing the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted to 

resolve privacy objection). In addition, the court finds the potential benefits of disclosure, based 

on the relevance of the information, outweigh the potential disadvantages, and overrules the 

objection based on official information privilege. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 

1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990) (“To determine whether the information sought is privileged, 

courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the 

latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.”). Accordingly, defendants will be directed to 

disclose the documents to plaintiff, subject to a protective order set forth below. 

II. Protective Order 

A court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including forbidding or limiting 

1

 Defendants requested redaction of witnesses’ statements and the reviewer’s conclusion/findings 

to protect the integrity of CDCR’s investigative process. (See ECF No. 69-1 at 14, ¶ 12.) 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 76 Filed 09/09/24 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 

discovery, and specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c)(1)(A)-(B). “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a 

protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. 

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). 

Defendants move for a protective order precluding plaintiff from having a physical copy 

of the documents to be disclosed. (ECF No. 74.) Defendants request to produce the documents for 

plaintiff’s review by providing a copy to the litigation coordinator at plaintiff’s facility and 

scheduling a time for plaintiff to review that copy. (ECF No. 74-2 at 1.) Thereafter, under 

defendants’ request, plaintiff may review the documents at his request. (Id.) Good cause 

appearing, defendants’ motion for a protective order is granted. 

IV. Conclusion 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF No. 74) is granted. 

2. Defendants shall coordinate with the facility where plaintiff incarcerated and schedule 

a time slot of at least two hours within 14 days of the date of this order for plaintiff to 

review the Inmate Interview for Allegation Worksheet (CDCR Form 3013-2), Report 

of Findings—Inmate Interview (CDCR Form 3014), and Confidential Appeal Inquiry 

Supplement to Appeal Log No. CHCF-E-19-00132. 

3. CDCR staff shall retain a copy of the documents described above and provide plaintiff 

a further opportunity to review the documents upon reasonable notice and request by 

plaintiff during the course of this litigation. 

4. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 

pending motion for summary judgment within 35 days of the date of this order. 

DATED: September 6, 2024 

Case 2:20-cv-01622-DJC-SCR Document 76 Filed 09/09/24 Page 3 of 3