Roettgen v. Foston et al

Filing 126

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 120 Motion to Compel Production of Withheld Document; Denying as Moot 116 Non-Party Motion for Protective Order. Defendants must produce the portions of the document in question, as indicated, no later than September 16, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 9/9/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

John Roettgen,

Case No.: 13cv1101-GPC-BGS
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER

v.
Foston, et al,

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF WITHHELD
DOCUMENT

Defendant.

15
16
17

(2) DENYING AS MOOT NONPARTY MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

BACKGROUND

On May 4, 2016, the Court issued an order compelling Defendants to produce
certain documents. (ECF No. 92.) The Court ordered the documents produced within
seven days of issuance of a protective order limiting disclosure of the documents. (Id. at
18.) The Court issued a protective order on June 7, 2016. (ECF No. 96.) On June 14,
2016, Defendants served responsive documents by mail. (ECF No. 108 ¶ 3, Declaration
of Christopher H. Findley in Response to Plaintiff’s motion to Compel Defendants to
Produce Records Responsive to Court Order.) Defendants withheld one document at the

1
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

1

request of a third-party correctional staff member [Captain Shirley Sanchez], and

2

produced a supplemental privilege log identifying the document. (Id. ¶ 4.)

3

On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of this withheld

4

document. (ECF No. 120.) Also on August 18, 2016, non-party Captain Shirley Sanchez

5

filed a Motion for In Camera Review and Protective Order. (ECF No. 116.) In this

6

motion, Captain Sanchez explains that Defendant Hernandez was the subject of a

7

complaint filed by her, which involved a “very personal matter.” (Id. at 2.) This

8

complaint and resulting investigation is the document withheld by Defendants, and

9

identified in their supplemental privilege log. Captain Sanchez requested this Court

10

conduct an in camera review of this document to determine whether it should be withheld

11

from disclosure in this case. (Id. at 4.)

12

On August 23, 2016, this Court granted Captain Sanchez’s request for an in

13

camera review of the document and ordered Defendants to provide the document to the

14

Court no later than August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 121.) Defendants provided the document

15

to the Court and the Court has reviewed the document.

16

II.

17

Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that

18

can be raised in response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for

19

Northern District, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (balancing the invasion of

20

minor’s privacy rights against the court’s need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v.

21

Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct.

22

1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (denying discovery of names of participants in a medical

23

study due to privacy interests of the individual participants); Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys.,

24

Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550–51 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (balancing targeted individual's right of

25

privacy against public’s need for discovery in employment discrimination case).

26

RELEVANT LAW

However, the right to privacy is not absolute and can be outweighed. Courts

27

generally balance the need for the information against the severity of the invasion of

28

privacy. See Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604–05 (C.D. Cal. 1995)
2
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

1

(finding that disclosing employment records is not “unusual or unexpected”). Disclosure

2

of documents that implicate privacy concerns must be narrowly construed to limit the

3

invasion “‘to the extent necessary for a fair resolution of the law suit.’” Id. at 605

4

(quoting Cook, 132 F.R.D. at 552). In the context of the disclosure of police files, courts

5

have recognized that privacy rights are not inconsequential and should be given “some

6

weight.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 656; Denver Policemen’s Protective Ass’n. v. Lichtenstein,

7

660 F.2d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1981). However, “district courts in the Ninth Circuit have

8

found that the privacy interests police officers have in their personnel files do not

9

outweigh the civil rights plaintiff’s need for the documents.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617.

10

III.

11

After a review of the document in question, the Court has determined that only

DISCUSSION

12

limited portions of the document are responsive to what this Court ordered produced to

13

Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court finds that the document implicates the privacy interests of

14

non-party Captain Sanchez. This invasion of privacy must be balanced with Plaintiff’s

15

need for the information. These two interests can be balanced by limiting the information

16

disclosed to Plaintiff to only the information directly relevant to his case. The Court

17

finds that the following portions of the document should be disclosed:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

AGO-417: The paragraph starting with “1.” and ending with “NOT SUSTAINED”
and the paragraph starting with “2.” and ending with “NOT SUSTAINED”
AGO-422: The line starting with “I reviewed . . .” continuing to the following line
and ending with “Unit . . .”
AGO-423: The fifth paragraph starting with “wrote ‘I asked . . .’” and ending with
“conversation . . .”
AGO-427: The line starting with “I reviewed a memorandum . . .” and ending with
“out with her.”

26

AGO-430: The heading “Interview Of” through the end of the page.

27

AGO-431: The paragraph starting with “June 26, 2014 . . .” through the next

28

paragraph ending in “June 26, 2014, while in . . .”
3
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

AGO-431: The paragraph starting with “relayed that on . . . through the next

1
2

paragraph ending with “while in her office.”
AGO-442: The line starting with “On December 9, 2014 . . .” and ending with

3
4

“(Exhibit 13)”
AGO-448: The fourth full paragraph on the page starting with “Regarding asking .

5
6

. .” and ending with “(during their interview)”

7

If counsel for Defendants has any questions regarding what should be disclosed,

8

they should contact chambers directly for clarification. The Court notes that the

9

document presented to the Court contained redactions. For the portions of the document

10

ordered disclosed to Plaintiff, the Court orders the same redactions be applied to protect

11

the identities of those involved other than Defendant Hernandez. The Court orders

12

production of this document subject to the conditions and agreements set forth in the

13

protective order between the two parties. (ECF No. 96.)

14

IV.

15

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY NON-PARTY (ECF NO.
116)

16

On August 18, 2016, non-party Captain Sanchez filed a motion for protective order

17

over the document in question. (ECF No. 116.) The Court finds that the protective order

18

already in place, in addition to the above described limitations on the production of the

19

document, sufficiently protect the interests of Captain Sanchez. As such, the Court

20

DENIES the non-party Motion for a Protective Order between Plaintiff and Captain

21

Sanchez.

22

V.

CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part

23
24

and DENIED in part. Defendants must produce the portions of the document in

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4
13cv1101-GPC-BGS

1

///

2

question, as indicated above, no later than September 16, 2016.

3

Non-Party Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: September 9, 2016

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
13cv1101-GPC-BGS