Percelle v. Pearson et al

Filing 112

ORDER on Motion to Maintain Redactions 78 by Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

STEVE DALE PERCELLE,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C -12-05343 TEH (EDL)
ORDER ON MOTION TO MAINTAIN
REDACTIONS (DKT. 78)

v.
S. PEARSON, et al.,
Defendants.

12

/

13
Defendants brought this motion to maintain redactions and confidentiality designations in

14
15

documents they produced to Plaintiff bearing bates numbers AG000020-159 (“Gang Validation

16

Package”). On July 8, 2014, the Court held a hearing at which Defendants agreed to, and the Court

17

ordered, the production to Plaintiff of the names of the author and reviewer of the debriefing report

18

contained within the Gang Validation Package, pursuant to the designation of “CONFIDENTIAL -

19

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.” The Court also ordered further briefing from both Parties. (Dkt.

20

106.)

21

Upon consideration of all the briefing submitted to the Court, oral argument, and in-camera

22

review of the Gang Validation Package, the Court finds that Defendants’ redactions to the Gang

23

Validation Package are proper because they are necessary to safeguard the identity of the

24

confidential informant and other individuals referenced in the document. (See Dkt. 77 (stipulated

25

protective order requiring the redaction of “information of all non-Plaintiff inmates or parolees”).)

26

As Defendants persuasively argue, the disclosure of this information could jeopardize the safety of

27

these individuals. In so holding, the Court “in no way suggests that Plaintiffs’ counsel would reveal

28

the identity of these individuals to their client. The [C]ourt only recognizes that accidental
disclosures can happen and that the identity of these persons must be afforded the greatest

1

protection.” Ashker v. Cate, No. 09-CV-5796 CW (NJV), 2013 WL 4026971, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July

2

12, 2013).

3

Defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED. Defendants’ redactions to documents bearing

4

bates numbers AG000020-159 shall be maintained. Defendants’ designation of document

5

AG000030 as “Confidential” shall be maintained. Finally, Defendants’ designation of documents

6

AG000033-159 as “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” shall be maintained.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Dated: July 28, 2014
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2