Garcia v. Juarez

Filing 96

ORDER Requiring Supplemental Production by the CDCR of Documents withheld pursuant to the "Official Information Privilege",signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/24/2016. (Case Management Deadline: 14-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, Jr.

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
PRODUCTION BY THE CDCR OF
DOCUMENTS WITHHELD PURSUANT
TO THE “OFFICIAL INFORMATION
PRIVILEGE”

Plaintiff,
vs.
MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, Jr.,

Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Roberto M. Garcia Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, although Plaintiff has been
appointed counsel for purposes of this motion to compel.

(Doc. 76)

Plaintiff filed the

Complaint commencing this action on May 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the
First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant Sergeant Matthew M.
Juarez, Jr. (“Defendant”) for excessive force.
On July 7, 2016, this Court ordered the CDCR to produce certain documents withheld
pursuant to the Official Information Privilege. (Doc. 83). The Court noted in that order that
some documents were missing from the disclosure to the Court—specifically the underlying
interviews that were summarized in various reports. (Doc. 83, at p. 12).
Per the Court’s order, on July 25, 2016, the CDCR delivered two CDs to the Court for
supplemental in camera review. Those CDs contained a video interview of the Plaintiff a well
as numerous audio recordings of other interviews.

28
1

1

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior order, the Court holds that the witness

2

interviews are not protected by the Official Information Privilege.1 The Court has performed a

3

balancing test and finds that the interests of disclosure outweigh the interests of any legitimate

4

security interest of the CDCR in withholding the information.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Within 14 days from this order, the CDCR shall provide Plaintiff with all documents

8

withheld under the official information privilege and provided in camera to the

9

Court in its July 25, 2016 submission.

10

2. To the extent that Plaintiff’s confinement prevents him from viewing or listening to

11

such evidence, the CDCR shall make available a mechanism for Plaintiff to review

12

such evidence consistent with the CDCR’s security measures within 30 days from

13

delivery to Plaintiff.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 24, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court is particularly troubled by the CDCR’s withholding of the Plaintiff’s
own interview and cannot find any colorable basis for the CDCR’s invocation of the Official
Information Privilege as a basis to withhold that interview from the Plaintiff in this case.
2