BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff George H. Robinson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the
The Magistrate Judge conducted an in camera review of the documents which Defendants claimed are entitled to protection due to the confidentiality of the information or due to the threat to the security and safety of the institution. Pursuant to this review, the Court issued an order informing the parties of the intended rulings and granted Defendants thirty days in which to file a motion for a protective order and proposed protective order.
Plaintiff moves for clarification and modification of the order re in camera review of documents issued September 1, 2011. Plaintiff states that he was not provided with a list of documents that were reviewed and it is unclear whether any documents were produced regarding request for production nos. 26 and 28. Plaintiff requests that all documents that were reviewed by the Court be produced. Plaintiff moves that he be allowed to contact the inmates involved in prior incidents and provides a letter and form declaration to be sent to each inmate.
In the Court's in camera review, the Court reviewed the documents produced by defendants and determined which documents are relevant to this action. Plaintiff's request for all documents to be produced is denied, only relevant documents shall be ordered to be produced.. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Upon production of the documents in compliance with this order, Defendants shall identify the document requests for which the documents are responsive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).
Plaintiff's request to have his letter and form declaration sent to all inmates identified in the documents must be denied because he has not provided evidence that he completed the process to obtain written authorization from the appropriate prison officials. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3139 (2010). Further, because the Court does not have jurisdiction in this action over anyone other than Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court can only make a request to prison officials and cannot order them to allow Plaintiff to correspond with his witnesses.
Defendants move for a Protective Order for employee personnel records, appeals records for inmates, and internal use of force policies that were in effect at times material to the issues raised in Plaintiff's complaint. (Defendants' Motion for Protective Order 2, ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff opposes the Protective Order on the grounds that Defendants did not meet and confer as required in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1),
"The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The court has broad discretion to decide when it is appropriate to issue a protective order and the degree of protection required.
Certain information will be redacted from the training and personnel records. The personal identifying information, such as Social Security Numbers, date of birth, address, etc. of individuals, is not relevant to Plaintiff's claims in this action, and this information can be redacted without affecting the substance of the information included in the documents. Therefore, given the privacy and security concerns of this information and the lack of probative value, Social Security Numbers and other confidential personal information of CDCR employees shall be redacted prior to documents being provided to Plaintiff. The redacted training and personnel records are not subject to the limitations in the Protective Order and shall be produced directly to Plaintiff.
The second category of documents will be subject to a protective order. Defendants argue that the Use of Force Policy is confidential due to the safety and security concerns of the institution, and a Protective Order is necessary to protect the staff and inmates who work and live in the SHU. The defendants provided the "Use of Force Instructor's Guide" for in camera review in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production. Rather than setting forth the Use of Force Policy, the document is a training manual and discusses how to respond to different situations that could confront a correctional officer within the Use of Force Policy. The Court has reviewed the document and finds that the probative value of the Instructor's Guide is greatly outweighed by the security risk to the institution if this information were disclosed to the inmate population. Therefore, the Court finds that good cause exists to issue a Protective Order for the Use of Force Instructor's Guide. Since the allegations in this action do not involve the use of deadly force or mechanical restraints, those portions of the document that deal with use of deadly force and mechanical restraints are not relevant and will not be ordered produced. Finally, in weighing the limited probative value of the Use of Force Training Video against the safety and security concerns of the prison, the Court finds that the potentially relevant information is encompassed in the Use of Force Instructor's Guide, and the Training Video shall not be ordered produced. Based upon these findings, Defendants shall be ordered to produce the Use of Force Instructor's Guide, up to and including Objective 6 on page 27, and the Use of Force Policy Test Question Nos. 1 through 6, subject to the Protective Order.
Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order is unnecessary and proposes that he be granted single cell status to avoid a cellmate having access to the documents. Plaintiff argues he will agree not to copy or show the documents to non-witness inmates. While Plaintiff states he will agree not to copy the documents or allow any other inmate to see them unless they are a witness in this action, these conditions do not show that the Protective Order is unnecessary, but indicate Plaintiff's willingness to stipulate to a protective order.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief directing him to be single cell status in order to have the documents in his possession, the Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief. Section 3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, "[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The relief requested by Plaintiff is not related to the underlying claims that Defendants used excessive force and failed to protect him. Since the relief sought would not remedy the violation of the Federal right at issue here, the Court cannot grant the requested relief.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order is vague and ambiguous as to a reasonable amount of time for him to review the documents. To address Plaintiff's concern regarding "a reasonable amount of time," the Court shall order that Plaintiff be allowed one hour to review the portion of the Use of Force Policy Instructor's Guide that has been ordered to be produced and take notes. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted and the protective order shall issue as follows.
Defendants shall produce the confidential material, subject to this Protective Order on the following conditions:
1. The Social Security Numbers and any other confidential personal information of the CDCR employees shall be redacted.
2. Prior notice as required by Civil Code section 1798.24 (k) shall be given to individuals whose names or other identifying information are disclosed in the material.
3. The Use of Force Instructor's Guide may be submitted to the possession of the following persons:
(a) The Litigation Coordinator at the institution where Plaintiff is now housed; (b) Counsel for Plaintiff in this action, should Plaintiff acquire counsel;
(c) Paralegal, stenographic, clerical and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel for Plaintiff;
(d) Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings as are incidental to the preparation for the trial in this action;
(e) Any outside expert or consultant retained by Plaintiffs' counsel for purposes of this action;
(f) Witnesses to whom the Use of Force Instructor's Guide may be disclosed during the preparation for trial and trial, provided that no witness may have copies of the Use of Force Instructor's Guide or Plaintiff's notes regarding the Use of Force Instructor's Guide, and each witness shall be informed and agree to be bound by the terms of this order.
4. Plaintiff will be allowed to review the Use of Force Instructor's Guide, but he may not retain the document in his possession. Plaintiff shall be allowed one hour to review the Use of Force Instructor's Guide in the Litigation Coordinator's presence and take notes. In addition, Plaintiff may not disclose to or discuss this material with any other inmate, nor may any other inmate review or have possession of, any material produced pursuant to the Court's Order or Plaintiff's notes regarding the Use of Force Instructor's Guide. Counsel for the Defendants acknowledges that such access would constitute a violation of Title 15, California Code of Regulations, § 3370(b) and would compromise the safety and security of the institution.
5. Plaintiff may take notes, but shall not make copies of the Use of Force Instructor's Guide.
6. All confidential material in possession of the Litigation Coordinator shall be destroyed or returned to the Defendants' counsel no later than twenty days after trial of this matter, or sooner if the Litigation Coordinator concludes the material is no longer needed for Plaintiff's review.
7. Upon final judgment or resolution of any appeal, Plaintiff or his counsel shall return or destroy the Use of Force Instructor's Guide or notes on the Use of Force Instructor's Guide, and shall provide Defendants' counsel with a declaration stating all confidential material has been returned or destroyed.
8. No confidential material obtained by Plaintiff or his counsel shall be disclosed except as is necessary in connection with this or related litigation, including appeals, and not for any other purpose, including any other litigation.
9. Any confidential material filed with the Court by either party shall be filed and maintained under seal.
10. Any violation of this Protective Order may be punishable as Contempt of Court.
11. 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 official duties.
12. The provisions of this Protective Order are without prejudice to the right of any party:
(a) To apply to the Court for a further protective order relating to any confidential material or relating to discovery in this litigation;
(b) To apply to the Court for an order removing the confidential material designation from any documents;
(c) To object to a discovery request.
12. The provisions of this order shall remain in full force and effect until further order of this Court.
Accordingly it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
