Andres

(PC) Tate v. Andres

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 29, 20202:18-cv-00822California1,696 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEREK TATE, No. 2:18-cv-0822 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. ANDRES, Defendant. 16 Before the court is defendant’s motion for a protective order. ECF No. 63. The motion seeks to protect the confidentiality of a set of staff complaints produced to plaintiff on the court’s order. Id. For the reasons discussed herein, the court will deny defendant’s motion. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, challenging the sufficiency of defendant’s response to one of his requests for production. ECF No. 41 at 3. Specifically, plaintiff sought the production of fourteen staff complaints filed by other inmates against defendant. Id. at 6-7, 57-84. Defendant opposed the motion on the grounds that the complaints were irrelevant, confidential, and protected by the official information privilege. ECF No. 48.

Also pending is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, ECF No. 65,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.