Pulido v. Lunes et al

Filing 89

ORDER REQUIRING Production of Documents Withheld Pursuant to the "Official Information Privilege" With Redactions re 85 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/14/2016. Defendants Cruz and Shaw shall produce Exhibits 2, 6-13, 15-18 with the submitted redactions to Plaintiff within 14 days of this order. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG (PC)

JOSE PULIDO,

9

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS WITHHELD PURSUANT
TO THE “OFFICIAL INFORMATION
PRIVILEGE” WITH REDACTIONS

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

M. LUNES, et al.,

12

(ECF No. 85)
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff Jose Pulido (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

15

action filed on July 28, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges a violation of his

16

Eighth Amendment rights based upon defendants’ failure to protect him while in the custody of

17

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in Corcoran, California.

18

On August 25, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff

19

with certain documents withheld under the official information privilege and provided in

20

camera to the Court as described in the order. (Doc. 77, p. 7). Part I of that order included the

21

legal standard concerning official information privilege, and Part II of the order applied the

22

legal analysis to the documents being withheld on the basis of the privilege. (Id. at 3-7).

23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court further directed Defendants as follows:
Within 30 days from this order, Defendants shall either provide Plaintiff with all
additional documents and materials regarding the Investigation by the Office of
Internal Affairs of this incident, provide them to the Court for further in camera
review, or notify Plaintiff and the Court that they are not in Defendants’
possession custody and control. This includes all written or recorded interviews
associated with the investigation, as well as underlying documents referred to in
the investigation report.
1

1

(Id. at 7)

2

On September 23, 2016, Defendants Cruz and Shaw filed a request for in camera

3

review of the additional documents and materials regarding the investigation by the Office of

4

Internal Affairs. (Doc. 85). Defendants submitted one set of documents without redactions and

5

another set with limited proposed redactions of confidential personal information.

6
7

The Court has reviewed the documents, applied the legal standard articulated in Part I
of the August 25 order (Doc. 77), and now orders certain disclosures as follows:

8

Exhibit 19 is described by Cruz and Shaw as “Post Order for Facility C Yard Sergeant,

9

Post Order #230408, total 4 pages” (Doc. 85 at 5). This document describes the duties and

10

responsibilities of Peace Officers with respect to a particular duty post. The document does not

11

appear to be highly relevant to Plaintiff’s case, and the Court can understand how production of

12

this document to a prisoner could cause a security concern. After application of the balancing

13

test, the Court finds that Exhibit 19 is properly withheld pursuant to official information

14

privilege.

15

However, Exhibits 2, 6-13, 15-18 shall be provided to Plaintiff, as redacted. For this

16

group of Exhibits, the potential benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential disadvantages.

17

This group of Exhibits primarily contains highly relevant narrative reports about the incident in

18

this case. On the other hand, the potential disadvantage of production of this information to

19

Plaintiff in redacted form does not appear to be very significant because these Exhibits do not

20

discuss security issues.

21

For example, Exhibit 12 consists of Plaintiff’s own hand written statements about the

22

incident in this case. The court does not see any good faith basis to withhold this document

23

under the official information privilege, and it calls into question counsel's good faith and

24

adherence to the law regarding this privilege.

25
26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Cruz and Shaw shall produce
Exhibits 2, 6-13, 15-18 with the submitted redactions to Plaintiff within 14 days of this order.

27
28
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 14, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3