Batts v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 278

ORDER re 44 granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion to compel initial classification document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 9/17/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2010)

Download PDF
Batts v. County of Santa Clara Doc. 278 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LAILA BATTS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, PETER CRANDALL, CHRISTINA ARQUERO, and DOES 3-20, Defendants. / No. C08-00286 JW (HRL) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL CLASSIFICATION DOCUMENT [Re: Docket No. 44] *E-FILED 09-17-2010* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Laila Batts moves to compel the production of her initial classification report at the Elmwood Women's Facility. (Docket No. 44). The document in question records how the jail makes inmate security and housing assignments. The County of Santa Clara (County) resists the discovery, claiming that the classification documents are irrelevant and are, in any event, protected by the official information privilege. Because the matter had not been adequately briefed on plaintiff's prior motion, this court directed the County to submit a copy of Batts' initial classification documents for an in camera review. Both sides were also permitted to submit briefs on the issue. (Docket No. 119). Having considered the moving and responding papers, as well as the documents submitted for in camera review, this court grants plaintiff's request for the classification records in part and denies it in part. "Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information." Soto v. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975)); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987). In assessing the level of protection afforded by the privilege, "courts conduct a case by case balancing analysis, in which the interests of the party seeking discovery are weighed against the interests of the governmental entity asserting the privilege." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613. A party seeking non-disclosure must submit an affidavit from an agency official which includes the following: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the material in issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) statement that the official has personally reviewed the material; (3) specific identification of the governmental or privacy interests threatened by disclosure of the material to plaintiff and/or her lawyer; (4) a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective order would still create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy interests; and finally, (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure were made. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 670. Here, the Declaration of Captain Kevin Heilman satisfies the first three prongs of the Kelly five-part test. (Heilman Decl. ¶¶ 2-4). The County says that the classification records contain highly confidential classification codes (consisting of a series of letters and numbers) that reveal how security and housing assignments are made. Batts nonetheless argues that the County has not met all of the Kelly prongs and further contends that there is no reason why the documents cannot be produced subject to the parties' stipulated protective order (Docket No. 47). The County fears that disclosure of Batts' file would lead to a breakdown of the classification system and jeopardize jail security, thus putting jail staff and inmates in danger. (Heilman Decl. ¶¶ 4-5). The County expresses further concern that a protective order would be difficult to enforce and that disclosure to plaintiff would be tantamount to disclosure to the entire public. (Id. ¶ 9). This court is sensitive to the County's concerns about the potential for inmate manipulation of classification information. Nevertheless, the County has not demonstrated how disclosure, with appropriate redactions and under the stipulated protective order, would jeopardize the jail's security. At the same time, however, Batts' stated need for the 2 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 classification file is extremely underwhelming. She claims that she needs to access her classification file to show that she was placed in minimum security pregnancy housing. These are facts which are known to plaintiff and undisputed by defendants. Although her classification file is relevant in that it pertains generally to the period of incarceration in question, Batts has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the jail's confidential classification codes or of information revealing how the jail arrived at its decision to place her in minimum security pregnancy housing. Additionally portions of the records submitted contain information about other inmates that appear to have no bearing whatsoever on this lawsuit. The County submitted CNTY00041-00046 for review. Having reviewed the documents in camera, this court orders disclosure of the classification file pursuant to the parties' protective order as follows: · · All information pertaining to inmates other than plaintiff shall be redacted. Information that appears to show dates or times re Batts' classification records, officer names and badge numbers, and Batts' booking information are fair game for discovery. · Information showing that the jail knew of Batts' medical/pregnancy status, as well as information showing the jail's ultimate determination that she was to be placed in minimum security housing are fair game for discovery. · All confidential codes and other information in these records underlying the jail's decision to place Batts in minimum security pregnancy housing, and all information revealing how that decision was made, may be redacted. The County shall produce Batts' classification file, with redactions in accordance with this order, within 14 days from the date of this order. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 17, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:08-cv-00286-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Aryn Paige Harris aryn.harris@cco.sccgov.org, anna.espiritu@cco.sccgov.org bmarsh@hinshaw-law.com, csimmers@hinshaw-law.com Barry Clement Marsh Blaise S. Curet bcuret@spcclaw.com Gregory Joseph Sebastinelli gregory.sebastinelli@cco.sccgov.org, marylou.gonzales@cco.sccgov.org Jeremy L. Friedman Stephen Ryan Wong jlfried@comcast.net swong@spcclaw.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?