Plummer v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 93

ORDER RE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 8/4/2015. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STACIE PLUMMER,

Case No. 14-cv-03962-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE INVESTIGATIVE
REPORTS

9
10

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pursuant to the court's order, the City submitted copies of three reports prepared by Sue

13

Ann Van Dermyden for in camera inspection. The court has reviewed the report dated January 14,

14

2013, but it has not bothered to review the other two reports, because the proposed redactions in

15

the January 14 report are absurdly overbroad. For example, it is obvious that the investigator's

16

analysis and findings about whether Knight violated the City's harassment policies, see pages 39-

17

42, fall directly within the scope of the waiver and should not be redacted.

18

The City has wasted the court's time by submitting reports with such overbroad redactions.

19

The City is directed to resubmit the reports with proposed redactions that are reasonable by

20

Friday, August 7.

21
22

The City should be guided by the following:


The City is reminded that it will be permitted to turn over the reports to Plummer

23

pursuant to a protective order, and therefore disclosure of the contents of the reports

24

to Plummer will not necessarily result in disclosure to others. Whether others are

25

entitled to disclosure of the contents of the reports is a question the court will

26

consider separately if necessary.

27
28



The court construes the waiver narrowly enough to protect the strong public
interest in encouraging witnesses to speak freely in an investigation like this.

1

Therefore, the City may redact information that would reveal the identities of

2

witnesses who spoke with the investigator.

3



However, mere references to the conduct of other City employees should not be

4

redacted. For example, an allegation by Plummer that a certain employee did or

5

did not do something should not be redacted.

6



No allegations or statements by Plummer, Knight, or Lindsay should be redacted.

7



None of the investigator's analyses or recommendations should be redacted, except

8

to the extent that they reveal the identities of witnesses (other than Plummer,

9

Knight, or Lindsay) with whom the investigator spoke. Similarly, none of the
background information that contributed to the investigator's analyses or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

recommendations should be redacted, except to the extent it reveals the identities of

12

witnesses (other than Plummer, Knight, or Lindsay).

13



The court also construes the City's waiver narrowly in the following respect: there

14

is a distinction between Van Dermyden's investigation into Knight's conduct, the

15

findings of which were disclosed in the press release, and any other investigation(s)

16

into the alleged underlying conduct by subordinates, which was not. For example,

17

the press release states that Knight "did not encourage a subordinate to retaliate

18

against Plummer." The portions of the report that concern whether Knight

19

encouraged a subordinate to retaliate may not be redacted, but the City may redact

20

any statements or information about whether the subordinate did in fact retaliate.

21
22
23
24
25
26

If the City does not take a reasonable approach to the redactions, the court will simply
order that the reports be disclosed unredacted to Plummer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

27
28
2