Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN E. MITCHELL, Case No.: 23cv661-BJC (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW 13 v. 14 M. RYER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 On October 23, 2025, the Court ordered Defendants’ counsel to search for the 20 following documents: (1) grievances or complaints filed against Defendants Ryer and 21 Valencia from 2017– 2019 involving violations of policies and procedures; and (2) 22 grievances or complaints filed against Defendants Salas and Esho from 2015–2019 23 involving excessive force incidents. (ECF No. 78 at 2.) After conducting these searches, 24 Defendants’ counsel requested to withhold certain documents. (ECF No. 82.) To 25 adequately assess Defendants’ privilege claims and conduct the necessary balancing, the 26 Court ordered Defendants to lodge “a privilege log and all responsive materials 27 Defendants seek to withhold” for in camera review. (Id. at 2.) The Court twice 2 (See ECF Nos. 86–87, 92.) Thereafter on April 1, 2026, Defendants timely lodged their 3 documents and an accompanying letter with Judge Berg’s chambers. Defendants did 4 not provide a privilege log. 5 In their letter, Defendants emphasize that Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) prohibits the use 6 of “[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or act . . . to prove a person’s character in 7 order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the 8 character.” Defendants argue Plaintiff improperly seeks evidence of prior grievances “to 9 show that Defendants had a history of acting in a certain manner,” which is expressly 10 prohibited by Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Moreover, Defendants contend “limiting 11 grievances to those involving ‘violation of policies and procedures’ was not effectively 12 limiting as, essentially every grievance (by their general nature) alleges conduct which, if 13 verified, would likely ‘violate policy and procedure.’” Finally, Defendants assert that 14 none of the conduct in the documents produced “bears any relationship to 15 [Defendants’] alleged conduct in this case” and there were no findings of violations of 16 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) policy. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 The Federal Rules authorize parties to obtain discovery regarding any unprivileged 19 matter that is relevant to any claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 20 case, “considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 21 controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, 22 the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 23 expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 24 Moreover, “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 25 evidence to be discoverable.” Id. Relevant evidence “has any tendency to make a fact 26 more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of 27 consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401 (emphasis added). District 1 || courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett 2 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 3 After a careful review of the in camera documents, the Court finds the documents 4 || are relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the Court finds the 5 ||documents—which pertain to instances of alleged misconduct by Defendants—are 6 ||relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, regardless of whether the documents will be admissible at 7 || trial or whether there were findings of violations of CDCR policy. Additionally, the Court 8 || finds the documents do not implicate proportionality concerns because they cover 9 || reasonable periods of time and only total approximately 170 pages. Defendants request 10 || permission to redact highlighted text containing personal identifiable information. 11 || Additionally, Defendants ask that Plaintiff be permitted to review the documents in the 12 || Litigation Coordinator’s Office or another room arranged by the Litigation Coordinator, 13 || but that Plaintiff not be permitted to retain copies of the documents. The Court finds 14 || these requests to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendants to produce 15 || the redacted, in camera documents to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms outlined above 16 || and the terms agreed to in the parties’ Protective Order [ECF Nos. 47-48] by no later 17 April 27, 2026. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: April 10, 2026 _ SZ. 20 4 L <—{— Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28