Corena v. Rodriguez, 1:16-cv-01025-LJO-EPG (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180919905
Visitors: 35
Filed: Sep. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE (ECF NOS. 39 & 43) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Jorge Corena ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On August 10, 2018, the Court held a hearing and status conference in this case. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Counsel Mark Ahn appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant Rodriguez. For the r
Summary: ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE (ECF NOS. 39 & 43) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Jorge Corena ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On August 10, 2018, the Court held a hearing and status conference in this case. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Counsel Mark Ahn appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant Rodriguez. For the re..
More
ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE
(ECF NOS. 39 & 43)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Jorge Corena ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 10, 2018, the Court held a hearing and status conference in this case. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Counsel Mark Ahn appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant Rodriguez.
For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Paragraphs 2 and 4 in the Court's Order Following Initial Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 37) is modified as follows: Defendant Rodriguez does not need to provide Plaintiff with unredacted versions of the medical ledger or the log book to inspect.
2. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff has until September 24, 2018, to produce to defendant Rodriguez all documents in his possession, custody, or control, related to exhaustion of administrative remedies of the claims in this case. Plaintiff does not need to provide documents he already provided, or documents provided to him by defendant Rodriguez.
4. The exhaustion motion filing deadline is extended to October 26, 2018.
5. Defendant Rodriguez's motion for a protective order is granted only as to photographs of prison personnel,1 only as follows: 1) the photographs are to be retained by the prison's litigation coordinator at Plaintiff's institution, and Plaintiff may review the documents through his correctional counselor; 2) the photographs are for Plaintiff's eyes only, and he shall not disseminate them; and 3) the photographs are to be used solely in conjunction with this case, and no copies shall be made except for submission to the Court or parties.
6. Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, Defendant Rodriguez shall produce to Plaintiff the redacted version of the investigative report that he provided to the Court for in camera review. As stated on the record, the Court finds that defendant Rodriguez properly redacted the inmate's name and statement under the official information privilege.
7. Plaintiff may write to defense counsel no later than September 24, 2018, stating the names of the individuals he believes are defendant Rodriguez's co-defendants, and asking for production of photographs of those individuals. No later than October 1, 2018, defense counsel shall either make the photographs available to Plaintiff, or inform Plaintiff that no such photograph(s) exist or that there were no such person(s) working at California Correctional Institute during the relevant period.
8. The Doe Defendant Identification Deadline is extended to October 5, 2018.
9. Except as stated above, and given the prior orders in this case, Plaintiff may not seek further discovery regarding the Doe Defendants' identities, and defendant Rodriguez may object to discovery requests on this ground.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Nothing in this order prevents defendant Rodriguez from redacting sensitive personal information, such as addresses and social security numbers, in documents produced in response to Plaintiff's discovery request(s).
Source: Leagle
