United States District Court, N.D. California
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 ...