1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FRANCISCO VEGA, JR., 1:22-cv-000471-JLT-EPG (PC)
10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 v. ORDER SETTING DEADLINE TO FILE 12 M. SOTO, et al., SUPPORTING BRIEF 13 Defendants. (ECF No. 105). 14 15
Plaintiff Francisco Vega, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 16 action. Generally, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that, after he filed grievances about the 17 Defendants’ misconduct, including an incident during which his testicles were squeezed, 18 Defendants retaliated against him by filing a Rules Violation Report (RVR) falsely accusing him 19 of constructive possession of a cellular phone. (ECF No. 15). This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s 20 First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Soto, Noujaime, and Borba. (Id.). 21 This matter is before the Court on documents that Defendants have provided to the Court 22 for in camera review. Upon review of the documents submitted, the Court will (1) order 23 Defendants to show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply with the Court’s 24 April 26, 2023 discovery order; and (2) will set a deadline for Defendants to file a brief 25 supporting their position that the in camera documents should be withheld from Plaintiff, in 26 whole or in part. 27 Order to Show Cause 28 After screening the complaint, on April 23, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order 1 opening discovery and providing a deadline for non-expert discovery for December 26, 2023. 2 (ECF No. 42). 3 In addition, also on April 23, 2023, the Court entered a discovery order that required the 4 parties to exchange certain documents within sixty days without a discovery request. (ECF No. 43) (“In an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action, the Court 5 will direct that certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.) (citing 6 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding 7 Rule 26(a) stating “The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed does not prevent a 8 court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclose additional information without 9 a discovery request.”). 10 The documents ordered to be produced without a discovery request included the following 11 categories of documents: 12 All documents regarding the Rules Violation Report associated with the 13 incident(s) alleged in the complaint, including disciplinary charges and findings. [And] [w]itness statements and evidence that were generated from investigation(s) 14 related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as an investigation stemming 15 from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s). (ECF No. 43, p. 2) (footnote omitted). The order cited Supreme Court authority that “proper 16 exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper 17 exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative record that is helpful to the court. 18 When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be 19 identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and 20 preserved.” (ECF No. 43, p. 2 n.4, quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006)). 21 This order also provided a procedure for objecting to production or providing documents 22 to the Court withheld under the official information privilege: 23 Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 24 evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 25 receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) object 26 based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. 27 (Id. at 3). 28 1 The accompanying scheduling order, provided as follows: 2 If any party or third party withholds a document on the basis of privilege, that party or third party shall provide a privilege log to the requesting party identifying 3 the date, author, recipients, general subject matter, and basis of the privilege within thirty (30) days after the date that responses are due. Failure to provide a privilege 4 log within this time shall result in a waiver of the privilege. Additionally, if a party is claiming a right to withhold witness statements and/or evidence gathered from 5 investigation(s) into the incident(s) at issue in the complaint based on the official 6 information privilege or confidentiality, the withholding party shall submit the withheld witness statements and/or evidence to the Court for in camera review, 7 along with an explanation of why the witness statements and/or evidence should be withheld. The witness statements and/or evidence shall be Bates stamped, and 8 mailed to Judge Grosjean at 2500 Tulare Street, Sixth Floor, Fresno, CA 93721. 9 The withholding party shall also file and serve a notice that they have complied with this order. All other claims of privilege may be challenged via a motion to 10 compel. 11 (ECF No. 42, pp. 3-4) (footnote omitted). On April 12, 2024, almost a year after the Court issued this order, and after a settlement 12 conference and the initial deadline for non-expert discovery, Defendants filed a notice of 13 submission of documents for in camera review, stating “Defendants have submitted for in camera 14 review copies of the Confidential Memorandum dated August 12, 2021 and dated July 30, 2021, 15 which are being withheld from Defendant Borba’s Response to Request for Production of 16 Documents, Set one, on grounds that portions of this document are protected by the official 17 information privilege.” (ECF No. 105). As the notice indicated, Defendants submitted the 18 documents for in camera review along with a Declaration of H. Casto discussing the sensitive 19 nature of the documents. 20 The Court has now reviewed the submitted documents. They concern the internal 21 investigation of the incidents at issue, including multiple witness statements generated from that 22 investigation. They thus appear to fall under the Court’s order from April 26, 2023, that 23 Defendants produce “All documents regarding the Rules Violation Report associated with the 24 incident(s) alleged in the complaint, including disciplinary charges and findings,” and “[w]itness 25 statements and evidence that were generated from investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue 26 in the complaint, such as an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s 27 grievance(s).” 28 Because it appears that Defendants did not comply with the Court’s order, the Court will 1 direct Defendants to show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to provide these 2 documents for in camera review within 60 days of the Court’s April 26, 2023 discovery order. 3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (providing for sanctions for failure to obey a discovery order); Leon v. 4 IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting Court’s inherent power to issue discovery sanctions). 5 Additionally, the declaration submitted provides only a very general description of 6 confidentiality and security concerns as to investigative practices.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FRANCISCO VEGA, JR., 1:22-cv-000471-JLT-EPG (PC)
10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 v. ORDER SETTING DEADLINE TO FILE 12 M. SOTO, et al., SUPPORTING BRIEF 13 Defendants. (ECF No. 105). 14 15
Plaintiff Francisco Vega, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 16 action. Generally, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that, after he filed grievances about the 17 Defendants’ misconduct, including an incident during which his testicles were squeezed, 18 Defendants retaliated against him by filing a Rules Violation Report (RVR) falsely accusing him 19 of constructive possession of a cellular phone. (ECF No. 15). This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s 20 First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Soto, Noujaime, and Borba. (Id.). 21 This matter is before the Court on documents that Defendants have provided to the Court 22 for in camera review. Upon review of the documents submitted, the Court will (1) order 23 Defendants to show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply with the Court’s 24 April 26, 2023 discovery order; and (2) will set a deadline for Defendants to file a brief 25 supporting their position that the in camera documents should be withheld from Plaintiff, in 26 whole or in part. 27 Order to Show Cause 28 After screening the complaint, on April 23, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order 1 opening discovery and providing a deadline for non-expert discovery for December 26, 2023. 2 (ECF No. 42). 3 In addition, also on April 23, 2023, the Court entered a discovery order that required the 4 parties to exchange certain documents within sixty days without a discovery request. (ECF No. 43) (“In an effort to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action, the Court 5 will direct that certain documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.) (citing 6 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding 7 Rule 26(a) stating “The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed does not prevent a 8 court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclose additional information without 9 a discovery request.”). 10 The documents ordered to be produced without a discovery request included the following 11 categories of documents: 12 All documents regarding the Rules Violation Report associated with the 13 incident(s) alleged in the complaint, including disciplinary charges and findings. [And] [w]itness statements and evidence that were generated from investigation(s) 14 related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as an investigation stemming 15 from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s). (ECF No. 43, p. 2) (footnote omitted). The order cited Supreme Court authority that “proper 16 exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper 17 exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative record that is helpful to the court. 18 When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be 19 identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and 20 preserved.” (ECF No. 43, p. 2 n.4, quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006)). 21 This order also provided a procedure for objecting to production or providing documents 22 to the Court withheld under the official information privilege: 23 Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 24 evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 25 receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) object 26 based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. 27 (Id. at 3). 28 1 The accompanying scheduling order, provided as follows: 2 If any party or third party withholds a document on the basis of privilege, that party or third party shall provide a privilege log to the requesting party identifying 3 the date, author, recipients, general subject matter, and basis of the privilege within thirty (30) days after the date that responses are due. Failure to provide a privilege 4 log within this time shall result in a waiver of the privilege. Additionally, if a party is claiming a right to withhold witness statements and/or evidence gathered from 5 investigation(s) into the incident(s) at issue in the complaint based on the official 6 information privilege or confidentiality, the withholding party shall submit the withheld witness statements and/or evidence to the Court for in camera review, 7 along with an explanation of why the witness statements and/or evidence should be withheld. The witness statements and/or evidence shall be Bates stamped, and 8 mailed to Judge Grosjean at 2500 Tulare Street, Sixth Floor, Fresno, CA 93721. 9 The withholding party shall also file and serve a notice that they have complied with this order. All other claims of privilege may be challenged via a motion to 10 compel. 11 (ECF No. 42, pp. 3-4) (footnote omitted). On April 12, 2024, almost a year after the Court issued this order, and after a settlement 12 conference and the initial deadline for non-expert discovery, Defendants filed a notice of 13 submission of documents for in camera review, stating “Defendants have submitted for in camera 14 review copies of the Confidential Memorandum dated August 12, 2021 and dated July 30, 2021, 15 which are being withheld from Defendant Borba’s Response to Request for Production of 16 Documents, Set one, on grounds that portions of this document are protected by the official 17 information privilege.” (ECF No. 105). As the notice indicated, Defendants submitted the 18 documents for in camera review along with a Declaration of H. Casto discussing the sensitive 19 nature of the documents. 20 The Court has now reviewed the submitted documents. They concern the internal 21 investigation of the incidents at issue, including multiple witness statements generated from that 22 investigation. They thus appear to fall under the Court’s order from April 26, 2023, that 23 Defendants produce “All documents regarding the Rules Violation Report associated with the 24 incident(s) alleged in the complaint, including disciplinary charges and findings,” and “[w]itness 25 statements and evidence that were generated from investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue 26 in the complaint, such as an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s 27 grievance(s).” 28 Because it appears that Defendants did not comply with the Court’s order, the Court will 1 direct Defendants to show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to provide these 2 documents for in camera review within 60 days of the Court’s April 26, 2023 discovery order. 3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (providing for sanctions for failure to obey a discovery order); Leon v. 4 IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting Court’s inherent power to issue discovery sanctions). 5 Additionally, the declaration submitted provides only a very general description of 6 confidentiality and security concerns as to investigative practices. And Defendants’ letter 7 submission to the Court asks to be given an opportunity to provide further justification for 8 withholding the documents at issue from Plaintiff. 9 Thus, the Court will direct Defendants to file a supporting brief, along with any evidence, 10 explaining the bases for withholding the documents.1 11 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 12 1. Within 21 (twenty-one) days of the entry of this order, Defendants shall file a response to 13 this order, showing cause why the Court should not issue sanctions for failing to comply 14 with the Court’s discovery order (ECF No. 43). 15 2. Also within 21 (twenty-one) days of the entry of this order, Defendants shall file a 16 supporting brief supporting Defendants’ claim that the documents should be withheld 17 under the official information privilege. 18 a. Defendants must include all supporting evidence, including the already submitted 19 declaration and any additional declarations. However, Defendants need not 20 resubmit the purported confidential documents, the privilege log, or their letter to 21 the Court. 22 b. If Defendants believe any documents may be produced in redacted form, they
23 1 The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing interests 24 of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure. . . .” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (citations omitted); Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 25 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr v. U. S. Dist. Ct. for 26 N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 406 (1976)); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended on denial of reh’g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh’g (May 24, 1991) 27 (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential 28 disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.”) (citations omitted). 1 should so indicate. 2 c. Defendants believe that the supporting brief itself contains confidential 3 information, they may file a redacted version of the brief, omitting such 4 confidential information, on the public docket and submit file an unredacted brief 5 under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 g | Dated: _ April 18, 2024 [Jee ey □ 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28