ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

The court plaintiff previously granted plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and ordered defendant to provide amended responses to three of plaintiff's requests for production.1 ECF No. 33; see also ECF No. 38 (denying defendant's motion for reconsideration). Defendant subsequently filed a notice of compliance with that order. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff disputed that representation and alleged that defendant had not complied. ECF No 40. The court ordered a response by defendant, ECF No. 42, which has been submitted, ECF No. 44. Additionally, plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Amend" his discovery motion to clarify that he is seeking defendant's personnel records. ECF No. 45. Each is addressed below.

Finally, the court reconsiders and grants plaintiff's earlier request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 22.

I. Compliance with the July 1, 2014 Order

Plaintiff is mistaken in his claim that defendant has not complied with the earlier discovery order. The court directed defendant to provide amended responses to plaintiff's requests for (1) documents related to CDCR's Zone-1 Policy, (2) "central file and all documents related to disciplinary reports of the defendant," and (3) "[s]hooting range score records and all related Shooting Training Documents." ECF No. 33 at 2-3.

Defendant has since located and provided to plaintiff one additional document related to the CDCR's Zone-1 Policy. ECF No. 44 at 1. Additionally, defendant has submitted to the court the declaration of D. Rosensteel which certifies that plaintiff has been provided all documents related to the Zone-1 Policy. ECF No. 44-1, Ex. E. Thus, this part of the order has been satisfied.

The order also directed an amended response to the request for "central file and all documents related to disciplinary reports of the defendant." ECF No. 33 at 3. Plaintiff's request for the "central file" was interpreted by the court as a request for plaintiff's central file.2 Id. Defendant has submitted to the court the declaration of D. Chance, which states that plaintiff has been informed of his right to access and obtain copies of the non-confidential portions of plaintiff's central file. ECF No. 44-1, Ex. D. Thus, it appears that this part of the order has been satisfied.

As discussed below, plaintiff has clarified that his request is for the defendant's personnel records, not plaintiff's central file. Defendant has submitted the declaration of C. Siegler states that there are no records "indicating that [defendant] had been disciplined at CSP-Sacramento." ECF No. 44-1, Ex. C. That declaration and plaintiff's clarification that he is seeking defendant's records are addressed below regarding plaintiff's "motion to amend."

Finally, the order directed defendant to provide plaintiff with shooting range score records and all related shooting training documents. ECF No. 33 at 3. Defendant has provided a verification that "there are no records concerning shooting range scores and shooting training, other than what has been produced. . . ." ECF No. 47 at 1; see also ECF No. 44-1, Ex. E (declaring that D. Rosensteel "searched the records at CSP-Sac concerning shooting range records and shooting training records regarding [defendant], and these records do not exist"). Thus, that part of the order has been satisfied.

In short, although plaintiff has now clarified that he wants records from the defendant's personnel file, there appears to be no basis for the contention that defendant has not complied with the court's order. The defendant has complied with the July 1, 2014 order.

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend His Discovery Motion

Plaintiff seeks to amend his motion to compel to clarify that he is requesting production of the defendant's "central file" not his own. ECF No. 45 at 1. As noted, the court interpreted plaintiff's use of the words "central file" in his discovery request as a request for his central file at the prison. See ECF No. 33 at 3. Plaintiff clarifies that he wants the defendant's personnel records.3 He also points out that defendant's own filings show that defendant understood that plaintiff was actually seeking defendant's records. See, e.g., ECF No. 44-1, Ex. B ("To the extent that his request includes personnel files of Defendant. . . ."); ECF No. 47 at 3 ("Acting on the assumption that [plaintiff] actually was seeking [defendant's] personnel file. . . .").

Defendant opposes the production of his personnel file because it allegedly contains documents that are privileged and protected by a right of privacy. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, documents that are a part of the personnel records of officers defending civil rights actions—even documents containing sensitive information—are not categorically exempt from the scope of discovery. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 614-15 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 230-31 (S.D. Cal. 1993); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Rather, federal courts engage in a balancing test to determine whether "the burdens of the requests outweigh[ ] their potential benefits" by considering (1) the "relevancy" of the moving party's discovery requests within the scope of Rule 26, and (2) the responding party's objections, if they are "clearly articulated" to show why discovery should not be allowed. See Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp., 826 F.2d 794, 805 (9th Cir. 1987); Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Prima Bella Produce, Inc., 1:10-CV-00148 LJO, 2011 WL 2518948 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2011). Here, the requested disciplinary records as to the defendant are relevant. Moreover, defendant has not provided a privilege log or any supporting argument for the blanket assertion of privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Further, defendant's concerns relating to privacy and security—such as disclosure of defendant's social security number, home address, names of dependents, and employment benefits, or other sensitive information, ECF No. 47 at 4—can be addressed through redaction of the relevant documents.

Of course, plaintiff's entitlement to information from defendant's official personnel records, is not unlimited. Plaintiff has not narrowed the scope of his request in either time or subject matter, and the request is therefore overly broad. Accordingly, the motion for an order to produce the entirety of defendant's personnel records is denied. However, the motion is granted as to documents pertaining to complaints, investigations, and disciplinary actions taken against defendant while defendant was employed by CDCR for alleged conduct that is similar to that alleged in plaintiff's complaint (i.e., excessive force). See, e.g., Haney v. Woods, No. 2:11-cv-2196 JAM EFB P, 2013 WL 870665, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2013) (explaining that a similar request for discovery was reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in support of plaintiff's claims). Defendant shall either produce any such records, or provide a proper verification that no such records exist.4

III. Appointment of Counsel

The court previously denied plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 24. The court sua sponte reconsiders and grants the motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: