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

 Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on December 7, 2005, well after the final extended 1

discovery deadline of September 12, 2005. (See Order filed September 22, 2005, holding that

discovery documents delivered on September 12, 2005 would be considered timely.) Because

there is no dispute regarding the relevance of the documents requested in plaintiff’s instant

motion to compel, the court will consider the motion. However, plaintiff is cautioned that failure

to comply with future deadlines could result in adverse consequences, including sanctions.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0756 LKK JFM P

vs.

L. VILES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 7, 2005 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On

December 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 56(f) to defer consideration

of defendants’ motion for summary judgment pending resolution of a discovery dispute. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel setting forth the dispute was filed the next day. Rule 56(f) 1

provides, in relevant part, that the court may order a continuance on a motion for summary

judgment to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery when a party

“cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition. . . .” 

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 55 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). For the reasons set forth, infra, it is apparent that plaintiff seeks documents

relevant to the disposition of this case, and that plaintiff does not currently have these documents. 

Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) motion will be granted.

By his motion to compel, plaintiff seeks documents responsive to requests 5 and 6

of his May 23, 2005 request for production of documents. By request 5, plaintiff requested:

Copies of any and all internal documents, memos, notes, records, files, recording,

investigations reports, true identities and names of all departmental employees

who participated in or authorized plaintiff Steve A. Martin D-48283 November

12, 2002, through November 27, 2002 administrative segregation placement for

alleged threatening of staff, but not limited to segregation order, review of

segregation order, hearing on segregated housing order, orders that on camera

interview investigation be conducted as to plaintiff’s allegations of being

assaulted by defendants D. B. Gauthreaux, release from administrative segregation

and retention in Administrative segregation.

(See Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s

Declaration in support of his Rule 56(f) motion, filed December 6, 2005, request no. 5.)

Defendants objected to this request on the grounds that documents related to plaintiff’s

placement in and release from administrative segregation are in his prison file and accessible to

plaintiff through institutional procedures. Plaintiff offers no good explanation for his failure to

complete an administrative review of his file, nor does his dispute defendants’ contention. Given

the decision to grant plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) request, however, there will be additional time

available to plaintiff before any opposition to a renewed summary judgment motion is due. Good

cause appearing, the court will direct the parties to cooperate in arranging for plaintiff to review

his central file and to copy, as appropriate, documents in his central file that are relevant to the

claims at bar. Said central file review shall be conducted so that it is completed within thirty

days from the date of this order.

By request 6, plaintiff seeks:

Copies of any an all internal documents, memos, notes, records, files, recordings,

investigation reports, true identities and names of all departmental employees who

participated in or authorized on camera interview investigation between

November 27, 2002 through December 7, 2002 regarding plaintiff’s allegations of

being assaulted by defendant D. B. Gauthreaux on November 21, 2002, at

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 55 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 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

 A complete copy of the proposed protective order is attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s 2

Motion to Compel.

 Plaintiff contends that he does not want to sign the protective order unless he is 3

guaranteed single cell status. Inmates do not have a constitutional right to any particular

classification. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d

1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987). Defendants will not be required to grant plaintiff single cell status in

connection with resolution of this discovery dispute. Furthermore, any disclosure of the

confidential documents responsive to request 6 will be subject to the protective order issued

herein. If plaintiff does not feel that he can maintain the confidentiality of the documents as per

the provisions of the order, he may review the documents and take notes. If plaintiff does feel

that he can maintain the confidentiality of the documents, he may receive copies of the

documents, subject to the provisions of the protective order.

3

California State Prison, “New Folsom” C-Facility, but not limited to all inmate 

witnesses.

(See Ex. A to Plaintiff’s Declaration, request no. 6.)

On August 10, 2005, defendants asked plaintiff to sign a stipulated protective

order as a pre-requisite to disclosure of the confidential documents. The proposed protective 2

order provided for redaction of personal information and prohibited plaintiff from disclosing or

copying any of the documents. On August 23, 2005, plaintiff declined to sign the protective

order unless it was amended to include an order transferring plaintiff to single cell status because

he did not want to assume responsibility for another inmate copying or disclosing the confidential

documents. In response to plaintiff’s concerns, on October 17, 2005, defendants offered to

produce the confidential documents for plaintiff’s inspection, without giving him copies thereof,

and to allow plaintiff sufficient time in which to review them. On October 31, 2005, plaintiff

rejected defendants offer and stated again that he wanted to be moved to single cell status and

receive copies of the confidential documents. Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant motion to

compel. 

Defendants do not oppose disclosure of the confidential documents under

protective order. On December 22, 2005 defendants requested the court to order that the

confidential documents be filed under seal. After carefully reviewing the August 10, 2005 3

protective order and the positions of the parties, the court will order defendants to file the

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 55 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 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

 Because the confidential documents will be filed under seal with the court, the parties 4

may refer in subsequent filings to the confidential documents without filing an additional copy of

any such document. 

4

documents under seal. The court will also order defendants to make the documents available to

plaintiff for his review or, at plaintiff’s request, to provide him with a copy of the documents. In

either circumstance, the documents, all copies thereof, and any notes taken in connection

therewith, will be subject to the protective order entered herein.4

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 6, 2005 motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) for

continuance of defendants’ motion summary judgment is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s December 7, 2005 motion to compel is granted in part, as follows:

a. Within thirty days from the date of this order, the parties shall arrange

for plaintiff to review his central file and, as appropriate, obtain copies of documents relevant to

the claims at bar. Said review and copying shall be conducted so that it is completed within the

same thirty day period. 

b. Within five days of the date of this order, defendants shall file the

confidential documents responsive to request 6 of plaintiff’s May 23, 2005 request for production

of documents under seal with the court. Said documents shall be maintained under seal until

further order of court and shall be subject to the protective order set forth in paragraph 3 of this

order.

c. Plaintiff is granted a period of thirty days from the date of this order in

which to either review the confidential documents and take notes thereon, or to request from

defendants copies of said documents. In either case, the documents and the information

contained therein will be subject to protective order set forth in paragraph 3 of this order. 

3. The documents filed under seal pursuant to paragraph 2(b) of this order contain

confidential statements made by Correctional Officers Matthews, Walker, and Griffith during the

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 55 Filed 08/17/06 Page 4 of 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

5

course of an investigation by the Investigative Services Unit at California State PrisonSacramento. Those documents shall be disclosed to plaintiff subject to the following conditions:

a. Personal information, e.g., social security numbers, birth dates, badge

numbers, etc., shall be redacted from the confidential material;

b. Until further order of court, the documents and material contained

therein may be disclosed only to the following persons:

(i) Plaintiff Steven Anthony Martin (D-48283) and defendants

Ramos, McKee, Lea, Gauthereaux, Johnson, Mathews, Chastain, Wheeler, Cade and Mini, and

their attorneys;

(ii) Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such

proceedings as are incidental to the preparation for the trial of this action;

(iii) Witnesses to whom the confidential material may be disclosed

during or in preparation for a deposition taken in this matter or otherwise during the preparation

for trial and trial, provided that the witness may not leave any deposition with copies of any of

the confidential material, and shall be informed and agree to be bound by the terms of this order;

and

(iv) Plaintiff’s counsel, if and when plaintiff retains counsel to

represent him in this action.

c. Plaintiff may, at his request and in accordance with the provisions of

this order, receive a copy of the confidential material from defendants but plaintiff shall make no

copies of the confidential material so received;

d. All parties shall return all confidential material to the attorney for

defendants Ramos, McKee, Lea, Gauthereaux, Johnson, Mathews, Chastain, Wheeler, Cade and

Mini, within five days of the time it is no longer needed for purposes of this litigation;

e. No confidential material obtained by plaintiff or any other party

pursuant to this protective order shall be disclosed except as is necessary in connection with this

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 55 Filed 08/17/06 Page 5 of 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

6

or related litigation, including appeals, and not for any other purpose, including any other

litigation;

f. Nothing in this protective order is intended to prevent officials or

employees of the State of California, or other authorized government officials, from having

access to confidential material to which they would have access in the normal course of their

officials duties;

g. The provisions of this protective order are without prejudice to the right

of any party to apply to the court for an order removing the confidential material designation

from any documents.

h. The provisions of this protective order shall remain in full force and

effect until further order of court.

4. Defendants’ November 7, 2005 motion for summary judgement is denied

without prejudice; and,

5. Within sixty days from the date of this order defendants may renew their

motion for summary judgment. Any such renewed motion shall be briefed in accordance with

the provisions of Local Rule 78-230(m) and this court’s order filed December 15, 2004. 

DATED: August 16, 2006.

17/12;mart0756.mtc 

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 55 Filed 08/17/06 Page 6 of 6