Hernandez v. City of Napa et al

Filing 88

ORDER by Judge Laporte granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion for In Camera Review of Law Enforcement Records (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff has subpoenaed the personnel records of former peace officer Donald Green from his employer Napa State Hospital, which is administered by the California Department of Mental Health ("DMH"). DMH has filed this motion requesting in camera review of the subpoenaed law enforcement personnel records and the issuance of a protective order if information and/or documents are disclosed. DMH argues that the production would impose an undue burden and expense on DMH and would require the production of privileged or other protected matter. DMH seeks an in camera review of the materiality and relevance of the information and documents contained in such records, and requests that the Court modify the subpoena to allow it to submit responsive personnel records under seal for an in camera review by the Court rather than directly to the issuing attorney. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. According to DMH's unopposed motion, Plaintiff has agreed to limit the scope of the subpoena to the DMH's Internal Affairs investigation of the April 1, 2008 incident and the citizen's complaint submitted to DMH against Mr. Green as a result of the incident. v. CITY OF NAPA, et al., Defendants. / LUZ HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, No. C-09-02782 EDL ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A), the Court "must" quash or modify a subpoena that requires the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, or subjects a person to undue burden. DMH argues that the privacy interest in police records such as those in question must be balanced against the interests of the party seeking discovery to determine if a right to privacy exists. The Court finds good cause for granting DMH's Motion without the need for oral argument, and hereby Orders DMH to lodge the responsive documents directly with this Court (i.e, by hand delivery) by no later than Monday, June 21, 2010 so that the Court may conduct an in camera review. Following the Court's review, it will determine which, if any, of the documents should be produced and rule on DMH's request for a protective order at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 17, 2010 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

2