Jackson v. Binkele

          SCHEDULING ORDER Docket Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61

          Edward M. Chen United States District Judge.

         This is a pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that is now before the Court for scheduling and miscellaneous matters.

         The cognizable claims in this action are that: (1) several Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's safety by housing him at Salinas Valley; (2) several other Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety by not preventing or acting quickly enough to stop a fight he was involved in a few weeks after his arrival at Salinas Valley; and (3) several other Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after the fight. See Docket No. 13 (order of service). Service of process was ordered on eleven Defendants. One Defendant (Lam) was later voluntarily dismissed. The remaining ten Defendants were originally represented by the California Attorney General, but since about June 2019, nine Defendants (i.e., Binkele, Erguiza, Gonzalez, Jah, Makela, Mindoro, Muniz, Patty, and Rawhoof) have been represented by the California Attorney General, and one Defendant (Schwarz) has been represented by private counsel.

         Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on nonexhaustion of administrative remedies. Docket No. 29. After that motion was fully briefed but before it was ruled upon, the parties requested that the case be referred to Magistrate Judge Illman for a settlement conference and otherwise stayed the case. Docket No. 45. The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Illman for settlement. Docket No. 47. He has recently reported that the case did not settle. Docket No. 55. The stay that was imposed to facilitate settlement proceedings is LIFTED. It is now necessary to set some deadlines and make other rulings to move this case toward resolution.

         A. Motions For Summary Judgment:

         1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on nonexhaustion of administrative remedies is fully briefed and will be decided in due course. See Docket No. 29 (motion); Docket Nos. 33-35 (opposition); Docket No. 38 (reply). Defendants should file a renewed notice of that motion, so that it will appear on the Court's calendar of motions needing to be decided. Otherwise, no further submissions from the parties are expected for this motion.

         2. A motion for summary judgment “re: administrative, yard, and medical claims” was filed on October 31, 2019, by Defendants Binkele, Erguiza, Gonzalez, Jah, Makela, Mindoro, Muniz, Patty, and Rawhoof. Docket No. 57. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to this motion no later than December 20, 2019. Plaintiffs must file and serve their reply brief no later than January 3, 2020.

         3. Defendant Schwarz must file and serve his motion for summary judgment, if any, no later than January 3, 2020. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to this motion no later than January 31, 2020. Defendant Schwarz must file and serve his reply brief no later than February 14, 2020.

         B. Miscellaneous Requests

         The request of Defendants Binkele, Erguiza, Gonzalez, Jah, Makela, Mindoro, Muniz, Patty, and Rawhoof to file a long brief (i.e., 29 pages rather than the 25 pages permitted by Local Rule 7-2) in support of their motion for summary judgment “re: administrative, yard, and medical claims” is GRANTED. Docket No. 58. The motion filed at Docket No. 57 is permitted.

         Defendant Schwarz filed a request for a briefing schedule so he could file his own motion for summary judgment. The request is GRANTED. Docket No. 60. The briefing schedule is set out above. Defendant Schwarz is reminded that he must file and serve a Rand notice at the time he files his motion for summary judgment.

         C. Motion To Seal Documents

         Defendants Binkele, Erguiza, Gonzalez, Jah, Makela, Mindoro, Muniz, Patty, and Rawhoof have filed a request to file several documents under seal. The documents consist of an aerial photo of the prison yard, two photos of the prison yard with prisoners visible in the very far distance, and a series of 18 photos of Plaintiff taken after the fight. Defendants urge that the disclosure of these documents “may jeopardize the safety and security of inmates, staff, correctional institutions, and the public.” Docket No. 59 at 2. They also state that they are willing to allow Plaintiff to see, but not keep, the evidence because retention of the documents poses a risk in that he or other prisoners might use the information contained in the photos to harm staff depicted in the photos or to harm other prisoners, especially because the photos were taken in a sensitive needs yard that houses some vulnerable prisoners. Docket No. 59-1 at 2-3.

         The court may order a document filed under seal “upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law (hereinafter referred to as ‘sealable'). The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” N. D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(b). There is a strong presumption favoring the public's right of access to court records which should be overridden only for a compelling reason. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433-34 (9th Cir. 1995). “Counseling against such access would be the likelihood of an improper use, ‘including publication of scandalous, libelous, pornographic, or trade secret materials; infringement of fair trial rights of the defendants or third persons; and residual privacy rights.'” Valley ...