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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?