Baker v. Hatch

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 06/03/11 ordering within 14 days of the date of this order, defendant shall either produce document sets 1a-c, 2 and 6a-b to plaintiff or arrange for plaintiff to review the documents at a reasona ble place and for a period of time not less than 3 hours. Plaintiff shall be allowed to take notes during the review. Plaintiff shall not make copies of the documents. Plaintiff shall not disclose any information from the documents to anyone excep t for the purposes of this litigation. Within 30 days of the date of this order, defendant may re-notice his motion for summary judgment or file an amended motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may re-file his previous opposition or file an amended opposition within 21 days after that. Defendant may file his reply within 14 days after that. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT GUY BAKER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-07-2204 FCD EFB P

Defendant.

11

HATCH,

14

/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 2010, the court ordered defendant to supplement their discovery

18

responses, and either produce documents responsive to some of plaintiff’s requests for

19

production of documents or prepare a privilege log and submit the allegedly privileged

20

documents for in camera review.
Defendant responded to the court order on September 1, 2010. With respect to plaintiff’s

21
22

request for production number four, requesting complaints and disciplinary reports regarding

23

defendant in the last ten years, defendant produced five sets of documents relating to other

24

inmates’ internal appeals and one set of documents relating to plaintiff’s internal appeal for in

25

camera review.

26

////
1

1

Defendant prepared a privilege log claiming that each set of documents is privileged

2

under “official information privilege; privacy; safety & security,” and has submitted a

3

declaration from the litigation coordinator at California State Prison, Sacramento. Dckt. No. 46-

4

1, 2. In his supplemental discovery responses, defendant also claims that these documents are

5

neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dckt.

6

No. 46-1. Defendant also submitted a brief asking for a protective order. Dckt. No. 46.

7

Specifically, defendant asks that in the event that the court orders disclosure of the documents, it

8

permit the redaction of inmate and non-defendant staff names and identifying information; set a

9

time and location for plaintiff to view the documents; order a delay in the release of the

10

documents, so that counsel can notify the inmates named in the documents and allow time for

11

their objections; and forbid plaintiff from copying the documents or retaining them after the

12

litigation has concluded.

13

Finally, defendant has submitted objections and a declaration from a non-defendant,

14

correctional officer A. Karelas, stating that plaintiff previously filed an inmate complaint against

15

Karelas and defendant, and asking that documents containing information about him not be

16

released.1 Dckt. No. 50. Karelas states that information regarding him has no relevance to this

17

case, and that releasing the information “may pose a threat to me and jeopardize my personal

18

safety.” Although Karelas is not specified as a defendant in this case, the complaint suggests

19

that he acted in concert with the named defendants. Karelas is identified by name in plaintiff’s

20

complaint as defendant Hatch’s partner who helped “practically lift [plaintiff] up” while

21

escorting him. Dckt. No. 1 at 2, 5. Assuming that Karelas is not an intended party to this case

22

but is only a potential witness, his declaration does not explain why releasing the documents

23

might jeopardize his personal safety, given plaintiff is already aware of his identity.

24

////

25
26

1

Plaintiff has not responded to these filings.
2

1

The court has performed an in camera review of the documents listed on defendant’s

2

privilege log, weighed the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages and

3

orders that defendants produce the sets of documents identified on their privilege log as 1a-c, 2,

4

and 6a-b.2

5

Defendants object to the disclosure of the requested documents on the bases of the official

6

information privilege, privacy, and safety and security. As noted in the court’s August 12, 2010

7

order, the personnel records of police officers defending civil rights actions for the excessive use

8

of force, while containing sensitive information, are within the scope of discovery. See Soto v.

9

City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 614-15 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147

10

F.R.D. 227, 230-31 (S.D. Cal.1993); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal.1992).

11

Information contained in the file may be relevant to credibility, knowledge, motive, preparation,

12

opportunity, identity or absence of mistake or accident. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 615; Miller, 141

13

F.R.D. at 296 n.3.

14

To determine whether personnel files sought are protected, courts must weigh potential

15

benefits of disclosure against disadvantages. Federal common law recognizes a qualified

16

privilege for official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.

17

1990). Personnel files of government employees are considered official information. Id. To

18

determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits

19

of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. Id. at 1033-34. That is, the privilege should

20

ensure disclosure of discoverable information without compromising the state’s interest in

21

protecting the privacy of law enforcement officials and in ensuring the efficacy of its law

22

enforcement system. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 662-63 (N.D. Cal. 1987). “In the

23
24
25
26

2

Defendants argue that some of the documents they submitted for in camera review were
not responsive to the discovery request at issue, since they are inquiry/ investigative findings and
a letter of instruction, and not complaints or disciplinary reports. Both the inquiry/ investigative
findings and the letter of instruction fall within the category of disciplinary reports, and the
documents may not be withheld on this basis.
3

1

context of civil rights suits against [corrections officials], this balancing approach should be

2

‘moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.’” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613

3

(N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661). Because “privileges operate in derogation of

4

the truth finding process the law places the burden of proving all elements essential to invoking

5

any privilege on the party seeking its benefits.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 662; Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

26(b)(5). If documents should be disclosed, privacy interests may be sufficiently protected with

7

the use of a carefully drafted protective order. See Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 662.

8

Document set 2 relates to the prison’s investigation of the incident that is the subject of

9

plaintiff’s complaint in this case. Document set 2 is obviously reasonably calculated to lead to

10

the discovery of admissible evidence, as it constitutes evidence regarding the facts of the

11

incident. Document sets 1a-c and 6a-b detail inmates’ complaints against defendant Hatch for

12

the use of excessive force against them. This is exactly plaintiff’s claim against defendant Hatch

13

in this case. The documents are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, as

14

information in the documents may lead to evidence as to defendant’s motive, intent, plan, or

15

absence of mistake or accident regarding the facts alleged in this case, as well as evidence that

16

may be used to challenge defendant’s credibility.

17

Defendant has submitted a declaration attesting to the harm that the disclosure of the

18

documents would cause. L. Young, the litigation coordinator at CSP-Sacramento, declares that

19

the following harm might result from the release of the documents to plaintiff: witnesses could

20

become more unwilling to cooperate with investigators; witnesses could be retaliated against by

21

other inmates based on their statements; inmates have been known to extort other inmates on the

22

basis of their personal information; and inmates might also extort, threaten or coerce correctional

23

officers if they had access to their personnel files.

24

L. Young does not explain how these theoretical possibilities might apply to the specific

25

documents at issue here. Although it is possible that witnesses may be less likely to cooperate

26

with investigating authorities if some witnesses’ complaints are later released in the context of
4

1

litigation, this possibility of harm is extremely speculative when applied to this case. Defendant

2

has not argued that the specific documents at issue here contain inmate statements or officer

3

information that are likely to invite retaliation, extortion, or coercion. The privacy rights of the

4

inmates and correctional officers named in these documents can be adequately protected by a

5

protective order, as discussed below.

6

Applying the balancing test, the court finds that document sets 1a-c, 2, and 6a-b should

7

be released to plaintiff. The documents may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and

8

defendants have not identified any non-speculative harms that will occur as a result of their

9

release.

10

The other sets of documents concern inmate complaints against correctional officers.

11

Defendant Hatch is named in these complaints, but he is not clearly accused of using excessive

12

force against an inmate. After reviewing these documents and applying the balancing test, the

13

court finds that these documents need not be produced to plaintiff. Although it is possible that

14

these documents might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the claims at issue in these

15

complaints are different from the claims in this action and the documents are therefore less

16

probative in this lawsuit.

17

Defendant requests a protective order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Defendant requests

18

that any personal information of other inmates or CDCR employees be redacted; the material not

19

be disclosed outside of this litigation; plaintiff shall not make copies of the information; plaintiff

20

be allowed to review the documents at a reasonable time and setting; or, plaintiff return the

21

material to defense counsel after it is no longer needed for litigation. In order to alleviate the

22

potential privacy and security concerns defendant raises, the court enters a protective order as

23

specifically described below. However, defendant’s request to redact identifying information is

24

denied, as such redaction might hinder plaintiff’s ability to obtain admissible evidence.

25

////

26

////
5

1

Defendant also requests that the court order a delay in the release of the documents so as

2

to allow time for inmates to file objections. As this case was filed in 2007, and plaintiff has been

3

seeking these documents since 2009, the court will not delay the case further.

4

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

5

1. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendant shall either produce document sets

6

1a-c, 2, and 6a-b to plaintiff, or arrange for plaintiff to review the documents at a reasonable

7

place and for a period of time not less than three hours. Plaintiff shall be allowed to take notes

8

during the review.

9
10
11

2. Plaintiff shall not make copies of the documents. Plaintiff shall not disclose any
information from the documents to anyone except for purposes of this litigation.
3. Within 30 days of the date of this order, defendant may re-notice his motion for

12

summary judgment or file an amended motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may re-file his

13

previous opposition or file an amended opposition within 21 days after that. Defendant may file

14

his reply within 14 days after that.

15

Dated: June 3, 2011.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6