*1 Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Solano, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request that the Court reconsider the portion of its April 21, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to respond to his discovery requests regarding defendant Benefield's alleged involvement in the October 2003 assault of inmate Henry Stephan Serrano and the alleged November 8, 2004 termination of defendant Benefield's employment with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. ECF No. 52. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

In the complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations against defendant Benefield, who was, during the relevant time period, a correctional officer in his housing unit. Between September through November 2015, defendant Benefield denied three requests from Plaintiff for a Priority Legal User (“PLU”) application and writing supplies. Plaintiff informed defendant law librarian Colvin that defendant Benefield was refusing his requests for indigent writing materials and otherwise retaliating against him. From November 30, 2015 to March 3, 2016, defendant Benefield verbally threatened Plaintiff for filing appeals, and retaliated against him by harassing Plaintiff, searching Plaintiff's cell, hindering Plaintiff's access to the law library, and threatening to restrict the privileges of inmates who co-signed Plaintiff's group grievance. When defendants Benefield and Garcia conducted a retaliatory cell search on March 3, 2016, Plaintiff asked for a sergeant to be called to witness the condition of his cell after the search. In response, defendant Garcia used unjustified force to drag Plaintiff from his cell, and defendant Benefield did not stop it. After Plaintiff was placed in the holding cage, defendants Benefield and Garcia threated to file a false disciplinary action against Plaintiff if he did not withdraw his request to have a sergeant investigate their misconduct. Defendant Sandoval was called and he inspected the cell. In retaliation, defendants Sandoval, Benefield, and Garcia filed a false disciplinary report against plaintiff for assault and disrespecting staff, and also denied his request for medical attention for the medical injury caused by the use of excessive force. ECF No. 1-3 at 9-19.

With respect to defendant Benefield, the Court found that the complaint stated cognizable claims for denial of Plaintiff's First Amendment right of access to the courts; for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 8.

Plaintiff has sought certain discovery regarding defendant Benefield's alleged involvement in the October 2003 assault of inmate Henry Stephan and the alleged November 8, 2004 termination of defendant Benefield's employment with the CDCR. Plaintiff argues that this information is relevant because he has alleged that defendant Benefield is a member of the Green Wall, a criminal gang of correctional officers; that defendant Benefield was terminated from employment on November 8, 2004 for assaulting an incarcerated person and filing a false report in an effort to cover up Green Wall gang activity; and that defendants Benefield, Garcia, and Sandoval were acting “under the banner of the Green Wall” when they committed the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff argues that the requested discovery would have the tendency to make it more probable that Defendants had committed the alleged constitutional violations, and because it would establish motive or intent in that it would establish that defendants Benefield, Garcia, and Sandoval acted at the direction of the Green Wall. In response to the discovery requests regarding defendant Benefield's alleged involvement in the October 2003 assault of inmate Henry Stephan and the alleged November 8, 2004 termination of defendant Benefield's employment with the CDCR, Defendants identified 22 pages of responsive documents but withheld them on the following grounds: irrelevance; privacy; the official information privilege; Cal. Gov't Code § 6254.3;[1] Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8;[2] CDCR Dep't Ops. Manual § 13040;[3] Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404(b); and because defendant Benefield remains employed by the CDCR.[4] ECF No. 38 at 17-23; ECF No. 39 at 5.

*2 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce these records, ECF No. 38, and on April 21, 2020, the Court denied in part and granted in part Plaintiff's motion to compel certain discovery, ECF No. 47. In relevant part, the Court denied the motion to compel with respect to the discovery requests regarding defendant Benefield. The Court found that although Defendants had not made a substantial showing that the responsive documents are protected by the official information privilege, these discovery requests regarding defendant Benefield were disproportionate to the needs of this case because the information (defendant Benefield's alleged actions in 2003 and 2004) was so remote in time that its probative nature with respect to the relevant claims in this action (defendant Benefield's alleged actions in 2015) was slight.

II. Motion for Reconsideration

On May 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the Court's April 21, 2020 denial of his discovery requests related to defendant Benefield. Plaintiff argued that the Court erred in denying the requested discovery because the requested discovery is relevant in that it can establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, and knowledge to show defendant Benefield's history of assault, of hostility to incarcerated persons, of filing false disciplinary reports against incarcerated persons, and of harming incarcerated persons who are outspoken, which bears directly on Plaintiff's claim that defendant Benefield retaliated against Plaintiff and used excessive force on Plaintiff. ECF No. 52.

On September 14, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file this motion for reconsideration, stating as follows:

ECF No. 57 at 7.

Defendants have opposed this motion for reconsideration on the grounds that (1) the Court correctly concluded in its April 21, 2020 order that events fifteen years prior are too stale and too remote in time to have any pertinence in this case; and (2) the danger in providing a correctional officer's personnel records to an incarcerated person cannot be addressed by a protective order because there is nothing to deter an inmate from disclosing such information. Defendants cite to Haddix v. Burris, C No. C-12-1674 EMC (pr), 2014 WL 6983287, at *6, in support of their argument that a protective order is an unworkable solution. ECF No. 62.

In his reply, Plaintiff responds that any concerns about defendant Benefield's confidential information being inappropriately managed can be resolved by the Court reviewing the documents in camera and by the appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of reviewing these documents. ECF No. 66.

A party may obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679–80 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (“District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes.”).

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enables the propounding party to bring a motion to compel responses to discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). The party seeking to compel discovery bears the burden of showing that the discovery sought is relevant, while the party resisting discovery bears of the burden of showing that the discovery should not be allowed. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995); see also DIRECT TV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (the party resisting discovery bears “the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections”).

*3 Defendants have not met their burden of showing that this discovery should not be allowed. Plaintiff has proffered a reasonable argument as to why this information is relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The complaint alleges that defendant Benefield harassed Plaintiff, retaliated against Plaintiff, allowed other prison officials to use excessive force on Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff medical care, and filed a false disciplinary report against Plaintiff. Plaintiff reasonably argues that the requested evidence could indicate, or prove, defendant Benefield's membership in, or relationship with, the Green Wall, which would make it more plausible that defendant Benefield took the alleged actions. Although the documents sought relate to an incident that took place approximately 15 years ago, the alleged severity of the incident (an assault on an inmate and a subsequent employment termination) make it more relevant than, for example, fifteen-year old grievances filed by inmates about general harassment.

The Court is also unpersuaded that the requested documents could not be provided to Plaintiff subject to redaction and a protective order. While the Court agrees that there is a risk in disclosing a correctional officer's personnel file to an inmate and that some inmate-plaintiffs may disregard a protective order and misuse the information, the Court disagrees that this risk necessarily allows Defendants to withhold relevant information. Accepting that argument mean that prison officials could always withhold personnel files in pro se actions brought by incarcerated persons, even when those files were directly relevant.

In addition, the risk posed by disclosure of the requested documents is contained because the request has been narrowly tailored. In Haddix, the incarcerated-person-plaintiff requested any and all documents in the defendant-prison official's personnel file “pertaining to any reprimands or complaints made against him by staff or inmates, or anything that could be deemed relevant to the allegations in [the] case.” Haddix, 2014 WL 6983287, at *5-*6. Here, Plaintiff seeks very specific information: information regarding defendant Benefield's alleged involvement in the October 2003 assault of inmate Henry Stephan Serrano and the alleged November 8, 2004 termination of defendant Benefield's employment with the CDCR. The risk posed by disclosing the specific documents sought here is significantly lower than disclosing all complaints or reprimands in a defendant prison official's personnel file, because the volume of information is less. The Haddix court expressed concern that producing a prison official's personnel file would disclose information about confidential staff misconduct investigations. Defendants have not indicated whether information regarding confidential staff misconduct investigations exist in the 22 pages of responsive documents, but if there is such information in the responsive documents, Defendants propose redactions to the documents to preserve the confidentiality of their investigation or to protect the identity of inmate witnesses.

Defendants' concerns about the disclosure of information in correctional officers' personnel files and of information that would impede the effectiveness of staff misconduct investigations are not without basis. Here, however, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that their concerns regarding the disclosure outweigh the relevance of these documents, and that there is no manner in which the documents can be provided to Plaintiff while accommodating these concerns. Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendants are ORDERED to submit to the Court and Plaintiff a protective order pursuant to which the responsive documents can be produced, and to provide the Court, for in camera review, an unredacted copy of the responsive documents and a proposed redacted copy of the responsive documents. After the parties have filed an executed protective order with the Court, the Court will order production of the redacted copy of the responsive documents to Plaintiff within a set time period unless the Court's review of the documents indicates that other issues need to be addressed.

*4 To the extent that the relevant RFPs seek documents generated by the Office of the Inspector General, the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association, or the Monterey County District Attorney's Office, the Court finds that Defendants must produce responsive documents if they have such documents within their custody or control. However, Plaintiff is incorrect that a document is within the custody or control of Defendants – CDCR prison officials – simply because attorneys from the California Attorney General's Office have referenced or used such documents and because Defendants are represented by attorneys from the California Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office is a separate entity from the CDCR and is not a named defendant. Plaintiff is also incorrect that a document is “within a party's custody or control” because the party can obtain it from a third party via a request under the Public Records Act. Pursuant to that reasoning, these documents are equally within Plaintiff's custody and control, since he could also file a public records request to obtain them. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain documents from the Office of the Inspector General, the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association, or the Monterey County District Attorney's Office, he should serve discovery requests on those entities.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders as follows. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is GRANTED.

Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Defendants are ORDERED to submit to the Court and Plaintiff a protective order pursuant to which the responsive documents can be produced, and to provide the Court, for in camera review, an unredacted copy of the responsive documents and a proposed redacted copy of the responsive documents. After the parties have filed an executed protective order with the Court, the Court will order production of the redacted copy of the responsive documents to Plaintiff within a set time period unless the Court's review of the documents indicate that other issues need to be addressed. At that time, the Court will set a briefing schedule for filing dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.