UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 23, 2011
RICHARD A. OCHOTORENA,
DERRAL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEFER ADJUDICATION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 112)
ORDER REQUIRING CDCR TO FILE DOCUMENTS WITH COURT FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW (DOCS. 111, 113, 116) DOCUMENTS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN/ DAYS
Plaintiff Richard A. Ochotorena ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Adams, Kalkis, Reynoso, Curtiss, Duncan, Fambrough, Lane, and Rodriquez. Pending before the Court are: 1) Plaintiff's motion to defer adjudication of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed July 14, 2011; and 2) Plaintiff's objections to non-party CDCR's production of documents, filed July 11, 2011. The Court construes Plaintiff's objections as a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.
I. Plaintiff's Motion To Compel (Doc. 111)
Plaintiff moves the Court to order CDCR to produce unredacted, responsive documents. On May 12, 2011, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum for production of documents on CDCR. CDCR or the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("SATF") was ordered to produce Operational Procedure 315 as it existed on or around September 8, 2003, and to produce training materials that related to photographing or otherwise documenting a crime scene. Order, Doc. 103. CDCR filed a motion for protective order, which was granted on June 15, 2011. CDCR subsequently produced a redacted copy of Operational Procedure 315, and a redacted copy of the instructional Crime Scene and Evidence Preservation training materials.
Plaintiff contends that the documents produced by CDCR were overly redacted and thus non-responsive to Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum. CDCR contends that it responded fully. CDCR contends that producing further information would jeopardize institutional security.
CDCR submitted these redacted documents with the Court. Having reviewed the redacted documents produced by CDCR, the Court cannot make a determination without conducting in camera review. The Court will order CDCR to submit these unredacted documents to the Court for review.
II. Motion To Defer Considering Defendants' Motion
Plaintiff moves the Court to defer consideration of Defendants' motion for summary judgment pending adjudication of Plaintiff's remaining discovery dispute. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion. No determination of Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be made until after resolution of this discovery dispute.
III. Conclusion And Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. CDCR is to submit to the Court unredacted copies of Operational Procedure 315 and of the instructional Crime Scene and Evidence Preservation training materials that were in effect on or around September 8, 2003, within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to defer consideration of Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.