JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery filed June 18, 2018 (ECF No. 59), Defendants have requested that any production of confidential/privileged documents, if necessary after in camera review, be limited by a protective order, to protect the unwarranted disclosure of private or confidential information. Defendants have also identified certain confidential/privileged documents that can be provided to Plaintiff subject to a protective order.
Having considered the application, the Court finds good cause and
1. The documents are for Plaintiff's eyes only, and he
2. The documents are to be used solely in conjunction with this case, and no copies may be made except for submission to the Court or parties;
3. At the conclusion of this matter, all of the documents produced according to this order and any copies made in connection with this case
4. In addition to the redaction identified in the order after in camera review, issued herewith, the defendants may redact (1) the personal identifying information of the defendants (except for their names) and all personal identifiers of third parties, (2) inmate identifiers, except for any that are witnesses to the events giving rise to this litigation and (3) non-public information that relates to the processes, operations, and investigations done by prison personnel, from any confidential record if ordered produced.
5. As to the documents marked as Bates Nos. CONFID 1-2, 5-6, 7-10, 45-46, and 56, the plaintiff may review them through his correctional counselor for a maximum of one hour over a period of seven days;
6. As to the documents marked as Bates Nos. CONFID 23-25, 36-44, 309-314, 319, 324-326, 333-335, 340-353, 361-362, 369-372, the plaintiff may review the documents through his correctional counselor for a maximum of eight hours over a period of four weeks.