Hernandez v. I.S.U. et al, No. 4:2021cv04368 - Document 41 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 29 MOTION TO COMPEL; DISMISSING DEFENDANT TOWNSEND; DISMISSING DEFENDANTS 28 SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DENYING AS MOOT 40 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY. Townsen d Terminated. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 8/11/2023. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hernandez v. I.S.U. et al Doc. 41 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, 8 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL; DISMISSING DEFENDANT TOWNSEND; DISMISSING DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY 13 Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 29, 36, 40 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-04368-HSG v. I.S.U., et al., Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events that happened at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was 17 previously housed. The complaint alleges that (1) PBSP officers Kaufman, McBride, Townsend 18 and Bradbury violated Plaintiff’s due process rights when they placed him in administrative 19 segregation on August 5, 2017, based on evidence that lacked indica of reliability, and (2) PBSP 20 officer Lacy retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment when, in retaliation for 21 Plaintiff naming him in a staff complaint and a federal civil rights action, defendant Lacy refused 22 to conduct an unbiased investigation of Plaintiff’s August 2017 grievance challenging the 23 administrative segregation placement. Dkt. Nos. 1, 8, 10, 11. This order addresses Plaintiff’s 24 motion to compel further response to his two requests for production, Dkt. No. 29; and Plaintiff’s 25 notice, Dkt. No. 36. In addition, because the parties are still engaged in discovery, the Court 26 DENIES Defendants’ summary judgment motion, Dkt. No. 28, without prejudice to re-filing after 27 all outstanding discovery issues are resolved, and DENIES as moot Defendants’ request for an 28 extension of time to file their reply in support of their summary judgment motion, Dkt. No. 40. Dockets.Justia.com DISCUSSION 1 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 I. Motion to Compel Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel further response to his two requests for production 4 (“RFPs”). Dkt. No. 29. It is unclear from the motion exactly what documents Plaintiff is seeking 5 to compel. Specifically, it is unclear if Plaintiff is seeking to compel Defendants to produce 6 responsive documents that Defendants have deemed confidential, or if Plaintiff is alleging that 7 there are additional responsive documents that Defendants have failed to disclose, or both. For 8 example, in the motion to compel, Plaintiff argues that the motion should be granted because 9 documents regarding defendant Lacy’s past mistreatment of prisoners and regarding conversations 10 about Plaintiff are relevant to this litigation. It is unclear if Plaintiff is alleging that there are 11 documents within these two categories that are responsive to his RFPs but have not been 12 produced. It is also unclear if these are the only categories of documents that Plaintiff seeks to 13 obtain in this motion to compel. 14 Since the motion to compel was filed, the parties have met and conferred. Defendants 15 report that through the meet-and-confer process, they determined that Plaintiff sought further 16 responses to RFP Set No. 1, Nos. 2 and 6, and further responses to RFP Set No. 2, No. 2. 17 Defendants report that they provided supplemental responses to these RFPs and that for one RFP, 18 they provided additional documents. Defendants report that the supplemental response and 19 supplemental document production resolved all but one issue. According to Defendants, the 20 outstanding issue is whether they should be required to produce the confidential memorandum on 21 which defendant McBride relied in ordering Plaintiff to be placed in administrative segregation. 22 See generally Dkt. No. 35. It is unclear whether Plaintiff agrees with Defendants’ representations 23 that this is the sole outstanding discovery issue. See generally Dkt. Nos. 29, 35, 37. 24 The Court presumes that the outstanding discovery issues concern the documents identified 25 in Plaintiff’s reply in support of his motion to compel. In his reply, Plaintiff states that he 26 continues to seek production of the August 3, 2017 confidential memorandum; that he is willing to 27 abide by any protective order entered by the Court; that the redactions in the emails provided to 28 him – presumably referencing the six emails provided in response to RFP Set No. 1, No. 6 – are 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 excessive because the only non-redacted material is Plaintiff’s name; and that documents related 2 to the investigation of Grievance No. PBSP-17-01804 are relevant. See Dkt. No. 37 at 1, 3, 5. 3 Based on the reply, the Court construes the motion to compel as seeking production of the 4 following documents: (1) the August 3, 2017 confidential memorandum; (2) unredacted copies of 5 the six emails produced in response in response to RFP Set One, No. 6; and (3) documents related 6 to the investigation of Grievance No. PBSP-17-01804. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 7 GRANTS the request to compel production of the August 3, 2017 confidential memorandum 8 pending the Court’s in camera review and DENIES without prejudice the remainder of the motion 9 to compel.1 10 A. Relevant Background 11 On or about August 5, 2017, Plaintiff was issued a CDCR Form 1030, which informed him 12 that information from a confidential source had been relied upon in deciding to place him in 13 segregated housing. Dkt. No. 35 at 2. The Form 1030 received by Plaintiff stated that a confidential informant had indicated that 14 15 a validated member of the Mexican Mafia was ordering Facility A inmates to coordinate an assault 16 on correctional staff with weapons and that Plaintiff had been identified as one of the possible 17 inmates coordinating and planning the assault. The Form 1030 stated that documentation for this 18 information was a confidential memorandum dated August 2, 2017 and authored by A. Kaufman. 19 Dkt. No. 28-4 at 5-6. On August 5, 2017, based on the Form 1030, Plaintiff was placed in PBSP’s administrative 20 21 segregation unit (“ASU”). See Dkt. No. 35 at 2. 22 Plaintiff requested an investigation into his ASU placement. At the end of the 23 investigation, prison officials determined that the confidential memorandum never mentioned 24 Plaintiff and that the Form 1030 therefore was issued in error. Dkt. No. 29 at 8. 25 In the complaint, Plaintiff makes the following factual allegations. The Form 1030 was unreliable 26 27 28 1 If Plaintiff seeks documents in addition to these three categories of documents, he should file a second motion to compel that identifies the specific discovery requests for which he seeks to compel additional responses and/or which specific documents he seeks to require Defendants to produce. 3 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 due to its vagueness and failure to adequately identify how the information was obtained. Plaintiff 2 informed defendants Townsend and Bradbury of the unreliability of the confidential information, 3 and informed defendant Bradbury that the confidential information was being used to retaliate 4 against Plaintiff. Despite being aware of the unreliability of the confidential information, 5 defendants Townsend and Bradbury relied on this confidential information to place Plaintiff in 6 administrative segregation, in violation of the Due Process Clause. See generally Dkt. No. 1 at 7 45-47; see also Dkt. No. 8. 8 B. August 3, 2017 Confidential Memorandum 9 Plaintiff argues that the confidential memorandum is relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 26(b)(1) in that it could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, specifically support for his 11 claim that his placement in ASU was due to correctional officers seeking to “get rid” of Plaintiff. 12 Dkt. No. 29 at 8. Plaintiff also states that he can and will abide by any protective order entered by 13 the Court. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ arguments are based on the premise that prisoners 14 are not entitled to the discovery process and that by labeling information confidential, correctional 15 officers can bypass the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 37 at 3. 16 Defendants argue that they should not be required to produce the confidential 17 memorandum for the following reasons. First, Defendants argue that the confidential 18 memorandum is irrelevant because, by regulation, all that is required for placement in the ASU is 19 the ASU Placement Notice, CDC Form 114, which has already been provided to Plaintiff. 20 Second, Defendants argue that the confidential memorandum contains primarily confidential 21 information such that, if all the confidential information in the memorandum were to be redacted, 22 nothing would be visible but Plaintiff’s name. Third, Defendants argue that production of the 23 confidential memorandum is subject to the official information privilege because it contains 24 sensitive information that would cause more harm than good if disclosed. Fourth, Defendants 25 argue that production of the confidential memorandum would compromise the safety of both 26 correctional officers and inmates because it would chill the flow of information provided by 27 witnesses, victims, and informants, thereby compromising the CDCR’s ability to conduct accurate 28 and reliable inquiries into prison gang activity. They also contend that if information in these 4 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 documents were revealed to the public, there is a risk that it could be provided to incarcerated 2 persons or those affiliated with them and could be used to undermine the safety and security of 3 prisons by educating them about how staff members manage the prison population, respond to 4 incidents, conduct investigations, gather intelligence, and return the prison to normal operations 5 following an incident, and by providing inmates with information necessary to avoid or thwart 6 staff members’ attempts to secure the prison and maintain security. Defendants argue that 7 disclosure subject to a protective order cannot address these concerns because a protective order 8 cannot guarantee that the confidential information will not make its way into the inmate 9 population, especially where the plaintiff is a pro se inmate. Defendants argue that the potential 10 harm is too severe to risk. Defendants request that if the Court determines that the confidential 11 memorandum is relevant, the Court first review the confidential memorandum in camera before 12 deciding whether it should be produced. 13 A party may obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 14 party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible 15 at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 16 evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined 17 broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 18 234 F.R.D. 674, 679–80 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 19 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (“District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy 20 for discovery purposes.”). Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enables the 21 propounding party to bring a motion to compel responses to discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 37(a)(3)(B). The party seeking to compel discovery bears the burden of showing that the 23 discovery sought is relevant, while the party resisting discovery bears of the burden of showing 24 that the discovery should not be allowed. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. 25 Cal. 1995); see also DIRECT TV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (the party 26 resisting discovery bears “the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections”). 27 28 Plaintiff has proffered a reasonable argument as to why this information is relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The complaint alleges that defendants Kaufman, McBride, Bradbury, and 5 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Townsend placed Plaintiff in administrative segregation based on evidence that lacked indica of 2 reliability. In cases of administrative segregation (as distinguished from segregation for 3 disciplinary violations), due process requires inter alia that there is “some evidence” to support the 4 reason for the placement in administrative segregation and that the evidence have some indica of 5 reliability. See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court disagrees with 6 Defendants’ argument that the confidential memorandum is irrelevant because the Form 114 was 7 sufficient to authorize Plaintiff’s placement in administrative segregation: the Form 114 8 references and relies on the confidential information in the confidential memorandum. Dkt. No. 9 28-4 at 8. 10 However, Defendants’ concern that the disclosure of a confidential memorandum 11 memorializing information provided by a confidential informant would impede the effectiveness 12 of staff misconduct investigations is well-founded. The Court also agrees that there is a risk in 13 disclosing a confidential memorandum that reports information from a confidential informant and 14 that some inmate-plaintiffs might disregard a protective order and misuse the information. 15 Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on whether the confidential memorandum should be 16 produced. The Court ORDERS Defendants to submit a copy of the confidential memorandum to 17 chambers within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order for in camera review. Defendants 18 shall simultaneously file a “Notice of Filing” in the docket, indicating that the confidential 19 memorandum has been provided to the Court for in camera review. After the Court reviews the 20 confidential memorandum, the Court will decide whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel 21 disclosure of that document, and will determine whether redactions are warranted and what 22 limitations on access should be imposed. 23 C. Unredacted Copies of Emails Produced in Response to RFP Set No. One, No. 6 24 Plaintiff alleges that the redaction of the emails produced in response to RFP Set No. One, 25 No. 6, render them unintelligible: “the emails are all completely redacted except w[h]ere 26 Plaintiff’s name appears and there is no information attached to Plaintiff’s name, it is literally just 27 Plaintiff’s name on a piece of paper.” Dkt. No. 37 at 3. The Court presumes that Plaintiff is 28 seeking to compel production of unredacted copies of these emails. This portion of the motion to 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 compel is DENIED. The Court has reviewed the redacted copies of these emails and it appears 2 that the information redacted is the names and inmate numbers of other inmates and the name of 3 the correctional staff preparing the emails. See Dkt. No. 35-1 at 18-26. Plaintiff has not identified 4 what information he believes has been redacted that is relevant to his claims and how the need for 5 disclosure of the information outweighs the confidentiality of the third-party inmates that may be 6 listed in the redacted portions. The denial of the request to compel production of unredacted 7 copies of the emails produced in response to RFP Set No. One, No. 6, is without prejudice to 8 Plaintiff renewing this request, accompanied by an explanation as to why the redacted information 9 is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 10 D. Documents Related to Investigation of Grievance No. PBSP-17-01804 11 In his reply, Plaintiff states that he requests “the appeal inquiry that was conducted into his 12 claim of retaliation.” Dkt. No. 37 at 3. He states that this inquiry is not provided to inmates 13 during the 602 process but is kept in the appeal file for litigation involving the department. Id. 14 Plaintiff appears to be referring to his RFP Set One, Request No. 2, in which he requests any and 15 all records, electronically stored information, written statements, documents, memorandum, 16 investigative files, originals or copies, that were produced or were created as the results of the 17 investigation conducted by Defendant Lacy into CDCR 602 Appeal Log No. PBSP-17-01804. 18 However, Defendants have stated that there are no documents responsive to this request. Dkt. No. 19 35 at 6. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel further response to RFP Set One, Request No. 20 2 is DENIED because there is nothing in the record implying that Defendants’ discovery response 21 was untruthful. The denial of this request is without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing this request if 22 he has evidence indicating that such documents exist and that Defendants’ discovery response is 23 thus inaccurate. 24 II. Plaintiff’s Notice Re Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 36) 25 Plaintiff has filed a notice stating that he mistakenly identified correctional officer 26 Townsend as a defendant, when he meant to list Townsend Campbell as a defendant. Dkt. No. 36. 27 Plaintiff requests to dismiss defendant Townsend from this action. Id. Good cause being shown, 28 the Court DISMISSES defendant Townsend from this action with prejudice. 7 1 2 III. Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 28) Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 28. Given that discovery 3 is ongoing and that the document to be produced pursuant to this order is directly relevant to the 4 issues raised in this action, the Court DISMISSES Defendants’ summary judgment motion (Dkt. 5 No. 28) without prejudice to re-filing after all outstanding discovery issues are resolved. The 6 Court DENIES as moot Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file their reply in support 7 of their summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 40. CONCLUSION 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders as follows. 1. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 29. 12 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to produce unredacted copies 13 of the emails provided in response to RFP Set No. One, Request No. 6. The denial of this request 14 is without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing this request, accompanied by an explanation as to why 15 the redacted information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 16 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP Set No. One, 17 Request No. 2. The denial of this request is without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing this request if 18 he has evidence indicating that such documents exist and that Defendants are being untruthful in 19 their discovery response. 20 The Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the confidential 21 memorandum. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Defendants shall provide a 22 copy of the confidential memorandum to chambers for in camera review. Defendants shall 23 simultaneously file a “Notice of Filing” in the docket, indicating that the confidential 24 memorandum has been provided to the Court for in camera review. After the Court reviews the 25 confidential memorandum, it will rule on the motion. 26 27 28 2. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s notice, Dkt. No. 36, the Court DISMISSES defendant Townsend from this action with prejudice. 3. In light of the ongoing discovery, the Court DISMISSES Defendants’ summary 8 1 judgment, Dkt. No. 28, without prejudice to re-filing after all outstanding discovery issues are 2 resolved. The Court DENIES as moot Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file their 3 reply in support of their summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 40. 4 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 28, 40. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: 8/11/2023 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
