Williams v. Navarro

Opinion

.

5 3 4 5 ||

6 □

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:18-cv-01318-DMS-RBM CDCR #AG-2394, 3 Plaintiff, RE OLLOWING IN CAMERA

14 |] 15 O. NAVARRO, et al.,

16 Defendants.|_ [Doc. 94]

17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On May 25, 2021, Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 ||forma pauperis, filed a motion to compel requesting discovery (“Motion”) from 21 ||Defendants C. Bagnol, E. Estrada, N. Garsilaso, R. Katyal, S. Krittman, F. Lewis, O. 22 Navarro, and C. Tiscornia (collectively, “Defendants”)!, which was accepted nunc pro tunc 23 ||to May 20, 2021. (Doc. 94.) Plaintiff sought to compel the production of documents 24 || responsive to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFP”), including 25 || RFP No. 7 which requested third-party inmate grievances and/or complaints against each 26 27 ' These are the only Defendants who have been served with summonses that have causes 28 || of action asserted against them that survived the initial pleading stage. (See Doc. 79 at 27.) \

1 ||Defendant involving similar misconduct as alleged against each Defendant in this case. 2 (Id. at 18-27.) Defendants objected to production of this information based upon the 3 || privacy interests of Defendants and third-party inmates. (Doc. 96 at 6.) The undersigned’s 4 || July 28, 2021 Order denied the motion to compel as to RFP No. 7 as premature and ordered 5 || Defendants to lodge a copy of existing grievances and/or complaints, filed between January 6 || 1, 2013 to August 31, 2018, for in camera review on or before August 11, 2021. (Ud. at 7 Accordingly, Defendants lodged thirty-five records of administrative grievances on 8 || August 10, 2021. (Doc. 104.) □ 9 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion as to RFP No. 7 is GRANTED 10 || IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants are ordered to produce documents 11 ||responsive to RFP No. 7 as outlined herein. 12 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 13 A. Surviving Causes of Action in First Amended Complaint 14 || The surviving causes of action in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint includes a 15 ||First Amendment retaliation claim in count one and Eighth Amendment claims in counts 16 || one and three including excessive use of force, deliberate indifference to his medical needs, 17 cruel and unusual punishment. (See generally Doc. 79 (citing Doc. 61).) 18 To support the Eighth and First Amendment claims in count one, Plaintiff alleges 19 ||Defendants O. Navarro, N. Garsilaso, C. Bagnol, and E. Estrada were deliberately 20 |lindifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs when they did not release him from his cell on 21 || various dates and denied his requests for medical assistance. (Doc. 61 at 6-9.) Plaintiff 22 |\also alleges O. Navarro hit him in the head with his cell door on June 4, 2018, knocking 23 down and injuring his neck and shoulder. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges O. Navarro began a 24 “campaign of harassment” against him, including filing a falsified Rules Violation Report 25 ||against him in retaliation for Plaintiff's use of the inmate grievance system. (/d. at 8.) 26 Plaintiff also alleges O. Navarro pointed a mini-14 assault weapon at him while making 27 threats. (/d.) 28

1 As to the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim in count three, 2 || Plaintiff alleges all Defendants were aware he suffered from mental health issues which 3 || were exacerbated by the denial of time out of his cell for exercise and showers, as well as 4 | denial of time in the law library which caused him to lose legal cases. (Doc. 61 at 14-18.) 5 B. Instant Motion . 6 RFP No. 7 was initially denied in part as premature because Defendants’ privacy 7 || objection could not be properly evaluated absent information as to whether documents 8 ||responsive to RFP No. 7 exist and the opportunity for an in camera inspection of any 9 ||responsive documents. (Doc. 94.) Pursuant to the undersigned’s July 28, 2021 Order, 10 || Defendants lodged thirty-five records of administrative grievances against C. Bagnol, E. 11 || Estrada, N. Garsilaso, F. Lewis, O. Navarro, and C. Tiscornia on August 10, 2021.” (Doc. 12 || 104.) The documents consist of administrative grievances submitted by third-party inmates 13 ||and staff complaint responses. Defendants assert there are no documents responsive to 14 || Plaintiff's RFP No. 7 for Defendants R. Katyal and S. Krittman. (Id. at 3.) The documents 15 submitted by Defendants have been reviewed in camera by the Court. 16 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 A party is entitled to seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to 18 claims and proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “The party 19 || seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the 20 relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Olivo v. Fresh Harvest Inc., No. 17-CV-2153- 21 ||}L-WVG, 2018 WL 5761478, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018). District courts have broad 22 || discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 23 ||732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). “Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of 24 || showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining[,] 95 ot *

97 Defendants’ Notice of Lodgment of Documents for In Camera Review lists thirty-two documents. (Doc. 104.) However, thirty-five documents were lodged with the Court. All thirty-five documents were reviewed in camera by the Court. .

1 supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07CV200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 2 || 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 ERD. 455, 3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2002)). 4 Questions of privilege in civil rights cases brought under federal statutes are resolved || by federal law. Howard v. Cnty. of S.D., No. 09-CV-2416-IEG WVG, 2011 WL 2182441, 6 *1 (S.D. Cal. June 3, 2011). Under federal law, the resolution of a privacy objection 7 |/involves a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy right 8 |iasserted. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 1995) (citing 9 || Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1984)). “In the 10 || context of the disclosure of police files, courts have recognized that privacy rights are not 11 inconsequential.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. “Federal courts should generally give some 12 || weight to privacy rights that are protected by state constitutions or state statutes.” Kelly v. 13 || City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 1987). “However, these privacy 14 |\interests must be balanced against the great weight afforded to federal law in civil rights 15 || cases against police departments.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. “In the context of civil rights 16 suits against [corrections officials], this balancing approach should be ‘moderately pre- 17 || weighted in favor of disclosure.” Id. at 613 (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661). “[D]istrict 18 || courts in the Ninth Circuit have found that the privacy interests police officers have in their 19 personnel files do not outweigh the civil rights plaintiff's need for the documents.” 20 || Franklin v. Smalls, No. 09CV1067 MMA RBB, 2012 WL 5077630, at *20 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21 2012) (citing Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617). There is a compelling government interest in 22 || exposing civil rights violations. Franklin, 2012 WL 5077630, at *20. Furthermore, “any 23 |/invasion of . . . privacy interests can be mitigated through a protective order and by 24 ||redacting sensitive information.” Roettgen v. Foston, No. 13CV1101-GPC-BGS, 2016 25 || WL 4555948, at.*1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); see also Lamon v. Adams, No. 1:09-CV- 26 00205, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3—4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2010). 27 In addition to correctional officers’ privacy interest in their personnel file, third-party 28 inmates have a privacy interest in the grievances they file against those officers. However,

1 || grievances filed by other.inmates alleging similar conduct by defendants are relevant and 2 || within the scope of discoverable information. See Moore v. Lankford, No. 19CV2406- 3 || DMS (BLM), 2020 WL 6262379, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2020); see also Tate v. Andres, 4 218CV0822KJMACP, 2020 WL 198415 1, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020) (noting 5 sufficient similarities in complaints could potentially demonstrate a pattern of conduct by 6 defendant that would speak to his intent, which is a necessary component to each of the 7 ||claims against him). Moreover, several courts have found plaintiffs entitled to discovery 8 || of grievances filed by other inmates alleging similar conduct by defendants, despite an 9 || objection based upon privacy interests of third parties. See Houston v. Eldridge, No. 10 216CV2561WBSKINP, 2018 WL 1014459, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2018); see also 11 || Taylor v. O’Hanneson, No. 1 1-cv-00538-LJO-SAB (PC), 2014 WL 2696585, at *5 (E.D. 12 June 13, 2014) (inmate entitled to grievances concerning mistreatment by defendants); 13 || Garcia v. Cluck, No. 12-CV-718 AJB NLS, 2013 WL 6441474, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 14 || 2013) (finding complaints by inmates about conduct similar to that of plaintiff's allegations 15 || “may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that could bear on plaintiff's claims, . . 16 |]. .”). 17 IV. DISCUSSION 18 Defendants lodged thirty-five grievances responsive to RFP No. 7. ‘Several of these 19 || grievances do not involve the claims of a third-party inmate, but rather, are grievances that 20 || Plaintiff filed against Defendants. The Court will analyze all lodged documents in relation 21 each Defendant and will specify whether the lodged document pertains to a third-party 22 || inmate or Plaintiff. 23 A. Grievances and Staff Complaint Response Regarding C. Bagnol 24 Defendants lodged document no. 18-3572? in reference to Defendant C. Bagnol. 25 || |

27 ||? Document no. 18-3572 also includes allegations against N. Garsilaso and E. Estrada which will be analyzed individually under section IV, subsections (B) and (E), respectively. 28 || See infra pp. 6, 8-9.

1 Document no. 18-3572 is a grievance filed by Plaintiff, wherein Plaintiff alleges 2 || Bagnol refused to release him to the pill-line for medication. Not only is this grievance 3 ||relevant as it involves Plaintiff and may support his Eighth Amendment deliberate 4 || indifference claim, but any privacy concern of Bagnol is outweighed by Plaintiff's need 5 ||for the documents. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Franklin, 2012 WL 5077630, at *20. 6 || Moreover, any privacy concern of Bagnol can be mitigated by a carefully crafted protective 7 ||order. Roettgen, 2016 WL 4555948, at *1; see also Lamon, 2010 WL 4513405, at □□□□□ 8 As such, Defendants are ordered to produce document no. 18-3572. 9 B. Grievances and Staff Complaint Response Regarding N. Garsilaso 10 Defendants lodged document no. 18-3572‘ in reference to Defendant N. Garsilaso. 11 Document no. 18-3572 is a grievance filed by Plaintiff alleging Garsilaso refused to 12 ||release Plaintiff to the pill-line for medication. This conduct is sufficiently similar to the 13 Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim Plaintiff asserted against Garsilaso. 14 ||(Doc. 61 at 6-9.) Thus, the document is relevant. Ud.) Any privacy concern of Garsilaso 15 |/is outweighed by Plaintiff's need for the documents. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Franklin, 16 ||2012 WL 5077630, at *20. Moreover, any privacy concern of Garsilaso can be mitigated 17 ||by a carefully crafted protective order. Roettgen, 2016 WL 4555948, at *1; see also 18 || Lamon, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4. As such, Defendants are ordered to produce document 19 18-3572. 20 C. Grievances and Staff Complaint Response Regarding F. Lewis 21 Defendants lodged document nos. 16-0873 A, 18-2004, and 18-6072 in reference 22 ||to Defendant F. Lewis. 23 ‘Plaintiff's claims against Lewis allege an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual 24 ||punishment claim in which Plaintiff suffered from mental health issues which were 25 || exacerbated by the denial of time out of his cell for exercise and showers, as well as denial 26 27 28 4 This is the duplicative grievance referenced in footnote 3. See supra, Sec. IV, subsec. (A), pp. 5-6.

1 || of time in the law library which interfered with Plaintiffs pending litigation. (Doc. 61 at 2 14-18.) The grievances in document nos. 16-0873 A and 18-6072 include allegations of 3 engaging in an overfamiliar manner with the reporting inmate and threatening to stab the 4 ||reporting inmate, which are unrelated to Plaintiff's claims against Lewis. Therefore, there 5 |lis no need to weigh any alleged privacy interests, and compelling production of document ||nos. 16-0873 A and 18-6072 is not required. 7 Document no. 18-2004 alleges Lewis ignored the reporting inmate while he was 8 || suffering from an anxiety attack, which was triggered by denial of access to the law library. 9 || This conduct is sufficiently similar to Plaintiff's allegations because Plaintiff claims Lewis 10 responsible for him having to choose between exercise time or time in the law library, 11 || which affected his mental health. (Doc. 61 at 16-19.) District courts have broad discretion 12 ||to determine relevancy for discovery purposes, and sufficient similarities in complaints 13 |) could potentially demonstrate a pattern of conduct that may speak to a defendant’s intent. 14 || Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751; Tate, 2020 WL 1984151, at *3. Any privacy concern of Lewis is 15 || outweighed by Plaintiffs need for the documents. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Franklin, 2012 16 || WL 5077630, at *20. Moreover, any privacy concern of Lewis can be mitigated by a 17 || carefully crafted protective order. Roettgen, 2016 WL 4555948, at *1; see also Lamon, 18 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4. As such, Defendants are ordered to produce document no. 19 || 18-2004. 20 Dz Grievances and Staff Complaint Response Regarding ‘C. Tiscornia 21 Defendants lodged document nos. 16-3840, 16-3927, and 17-5042 in reference to 22 || Defendant C. Tiscornia. 23 Plaintiff's claims against Tiscornia allege an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual 24 || punishment claim in which Plaintiff alleges he suffered from mental health issues which 25 || were exacerbated by the denial of time out of his cell for exercise and showers, as well as 26 || denial of time in the law library which caused him to lose legal cases. (Doc. 61 at 14-18.) 27 ||The grievances in document nos. 16—-33840 and 16—33927 include allegations of 28 || unprofessional behavior and disrespectful statements, which are irrelevant to □□□□□□□□□□□

||claims against Tiscornia. Thus, there is no need to weigh any alleged privacy interests, 2 ||and compelling production of document nos. 16—33840 and 16—33927 is not required. 3 Document no. 17-5042 alleges Tiscornia denied the reporting inmate adequate time 4 ||in the law library. This conduct is sufficiently similar to Plaintiff's allegations against 5 || Tiscornia because he generally claims Tiscornia denied him access to the law library. (Doc 6 |/61 at 17.) District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery 7 || purposes, and sufficient similarities in complaints could potentially demonstrate a pattern 8 of conduct that may speak to a defendant’s intent. Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751; Tate, 2020 WL 9 ||} 1984151, at *3. Any privacy concern of Tiscomia is outweighed by Plaintiff's need for 10 ||the documents. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Franklin, 2012 WL 5077630, at *20. Moreover, 11 privacy concern of Tiscornia can be mitigated by a carefully crafted protective order. 12 || Roettgen, 2016 WL 4555948, at *1; see also Lamon, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4. As such, 13 Defendants are ordered to produce document no. 17-5042. 14 E. Grievances and Staff Complaint Response Regarding E. Estrada 15 Defendants lodged document nos. 18-3206, 18-3572, 18-3821, and 18-4335° in 16 ||reference to Defendant E. Estrada. 17 Of the four lodged documents, document nos. 18-3206, 18-3572, and 18-4335 18 ||include grievances alleging denial of medication and refusing to release the reporting 19 ||inmate to the pill-line for medication. These allegations are related to Plaintiff's Eighth ||Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs asserted against Estrada. 21 ||Document no. 18-3821 alleges Estrada failed to protect the reporting inmate by refusing 22 ||to grant a cell move, which is unrelated to Plaintiff's claims against Estrada. Thus, only 23 || document nos. 18-3206, 18-3572, and 18-4335 are relevant. 24 25 □ wei 27 Document no. 18-3572 is the same grievance referenced in footnotes 3 and 4. See supra, Sec. IV, subsecs. (A), (B), pp. 5-6. Document nos. 18-3206, 18-3821, and 18-4335 also 28 include allegations against O. Navarro and will be analyzed individually as to Navarro.

1 These three relevant lodged documents are grievances filed by Plaintiff. Any 2 privacy concern of Estrada is outweighed by Plaintiffs need for the documents. Soto, 162 3 ||F.R.D. at 613; Franklin, 2012 WL 5077630, at *20. Moreover, any privacy concern of 4 ||Estrada can be mitigated by a carefully crafted protective order. Roettgen, 2016 WL 5 4555948, at *1; see also Lamon, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4. As such, Defendants are 6 || ordered to produce document nos. 18-3206, 18-3572, and 18-4335. 7 F. Grievances and Staff Complaint Response Regarding O. Navarro 8 Defendants lodged twenty-eight documents corresponding to Defendant O. Navarro. 9 || These include document nos. 15-2234, 15-3138, 15-3880, 15-3906, 15-4094, □□□□□□□□ 10 || 16-2883, 16-3284, 16-3288, 16-3388, 16-3411, 16-3414, 16-3552, 16-3784, 16-4070, 11 16-5179, 17-0265, 17-0299, 17-0757, 17-1183, 17-1854, 17-2604, 17-3546, 17- 12 ||6677,18-3206, 18-3368, 18-3821, and 18-4335.° 13 i. Relevancy of Grievances 14 Of the twenty-eight lodged documents, document nos. 15-3138, 15-3906, 16-2855 ; 15 || 16-2883, 16-3284, 16-3288, 16-3388, 16-3411, 16-3414, 16-3552, 16-4070, 16-5179, 16 || 17-0265, 17-0299, 17-0757, 17-1183, 17-1854, 17-2604, 17-3546, 17-6677, 18-3206, 17 || 18-3368, 18-3821, and 18-4335 (“Relevant Lodged Documents”) are relevant as the 18 || grievances allege excessive use of force, harassment, retaliatory behavior, filing false 19 |) charges against the reporting inmate, refusing to open a reporting inmate’s cell door while 20 || attempting to access medicine, deliberate indifference to a reporting inmate’s safety, and 21 || denial of medical attention. Because these allegations are sufficiently similar to Plaintiffs 22 |}claims against Defendant Navarro, the twenty-four aforementioned documents are 23 || relevant. 24 ||. The remaining four lodged documents, document nos. 15—2234, 15-3880, □□□□□□□□ 25 16-3784, include allegations of interference with mail and smuggling drugs and cell 26 27 Document nos. 18-3206, 18-3821, and 18-4335 are the same grievances referenced in 28 footnote 5. See supra, Sec. IV, subsec. (E) pp. 8-9.

1 ||phones to inmates. Because the grievances allege conduct unrelated to □□□□□□□□□□□

_ 2 |/allegations in the instant action, they are irrelevant and compelling production is not 3 required. 4 ii. Privacy Interests 5 Three of the Relevant Lodged Documents are grievances filed by Plaintiff (18-3206, 6 || 18-4335, 18-3368). Any privacy concern of Navarro is outweighed by Plaintiffs need for 7 ||the documents. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Franklin, 2012 WL 5077630, at *20. Moreover, 8 privacy concern of Navarro can be mitigated by a carefully crafted protective order. 9 || Roettgen, 2016 WL 4555948, at *1; see also Lamon, 2010 WL 4513405, at *3-4. As to 10 ||the twenty-one remaining Relevant Lodged Documents, the Court must balance serious 11 || privacy concerns of third-party inmates against Plaintiffs stated need for these documents. 12 || See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. 13 The release of third-party inmate information to Plaintiff could jeopardize his safety, 14 ||the safety of third-party inmates, and staff members who may be perceived as breaching 15 confidentiality.. These factors weigh in favor of nondisclosure. But see Garcia v. 16 || Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr.12, 17 ||2012) (noting inmate’s entitlement to inspect discoverable information may be 18 accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); Taylor, 2014 WL 19 2696585, at *1. Alternatively, Plaintiff's case is brought in good faith and discovery is 20 || unavailable from other sources. Moreover, “{o]ther complaints about conduct similar to 21 || that alleged in the complaint may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence that could 22 || bear on Plaintiff's claims... .” Garcia, 2013 WL 6441474, at *2; see also Taylor, 2014 23 || WL 2696585, at *1. These factors favor disclosure. After balancing the potential benefits 24 || of disclosure against the potential disadvantages of disclosure, the undersigned finds the 25 || factors weigh in favor of disclosure. 26 || Thus, Defendants are required to produce the Relevant Lodged Documents. | 27 _ To the extent that the privacy interests of third parties are implicated by these 28 ||documents, Defendants shall take care to REDACT all identifying information of third 19

1 || parties from the documents, and the documents will be governed by a protective order as 2 ||-outlined below. See Thompson v. Morales, No. 1:04-CV-06554-SMS PC, 2008 WL 3 413757, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008); see also Eusse v. Vitela, No. 4 ||313CV00916BENNLS, 2015 WL 9008634, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2015). 5 G. Protective Order 6 _ Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and “in the inherent 7 || discretion of a court to manage its own discovery, a court may sua sponte enter a protective 8 order for good cause shown.” Merritt v. Redwood Invs., LLC, No. 18CV01793JLSJLB, 9 ||2019 WL 4416130, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Moreover, the 10 || Sinegal v. Duarte court decided similar issues and issued a protective order, the language 11 which is adopted herein. Sinegal, No. 11CV2534-BEN JMA, 2014 WL 988572, at *4 12 }|(S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2014). 13 Pursuant to the terms of this Order, Defendants will release to Plaintiff document 14 15-3138, 15-3906, 16-2855, 16-2883, 16-3284, 16-3288, 16-3388, 16-3411, □□□ 15 ||3414, 16-3552, 16-4070, 16-5179, 17-0265, 17-0299, 17-0757, 17-1183, 17-1854, 17— 16 |) 2604, 17-3546, 17-5042, 17-6677, 18-2004, 18-3206, 18-3368, 18-3572, 18-3821, and 17 || 18-4335 (hereinafter the “Materials”) by no later than November 22, 2021. 18 Due to their sensitive and confidential nature, any Materials produced pursuant to 19 || this Order shall be used by Plaintiff and Defendants solely in connection with the case of 20 || Williams v. Navarro, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01318-DMS-RBM, and not for any other 21 purpose, including other litigation. 22 Plaintiff is strictly prohibited from disclosing (including copying, sharing, or 23 discussing) the Materials or their contents under any circumstances with any inmate. 24 || Furthermore, Plaintiff is strictly prohibited from disclosing (including copying, sharing, or 25 discussing) the Materials or their contents to any person. for ‘any purpose, except to 26 || Defendants’ counsel of record, the Court, and necessary prison staff, for use only in 27 connection with this action. Notwithstanding these restrictions, Plaintiff may discuss the oo 1]

1 contents of the Materials with potential witnesses; however, he may do so only as it relates 2 || to this litigation. 3 Plaintiff is strictly prohibited from copying the Materials or their contents, except as 4 ||required to attach to court filings. Plaintiff and Defendants must endeavor to protect the 5 || confidentiality of the Materials consistent with this Protective Order. If Plaintiff attaches 6 ||the Materials to a court filing, he must simultaneously file a Motion to File Confidential 7 || Documents Under Seal, in which he clearly and specifically identifies the Materials and 8 requests they be filed under seal. At the conclusion of this matter, whether through trial, 9 || appeal, collateral review, or other final disposition, all Materials, and all copies, shall be 10 |] returned to the Defendants’ counsel of record. . 11 |]. Vv. CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. 94.) as to RFP No. 7 is GRANTED 13 || IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Pursuant to the terms of this Order, Defendants are 14 || ORDERED to release document nos. 15-3138, 15-3906, 16-2855, 16-2883, 16-3284, 15 || 16-3288, 16-3388, 16-3411, 16-3414, 16-3552, 16-4070, 16-5179, 17-0265, 17-0299, 16 || 17-0757, 17-1183, 17-1854, 17-2604, 17-3546, 17-5042, 17-6677, 18-2004, 18-3206, 17 || 18-3368, 18-3572, 18-3821, and 18-4335 to Plaintiff by no later than November 22, 18 2021. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. ©

20 ||Dated: November 8, 2021 —

Birmucly Ug 22 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |

24 25 26 27 28 || 19