Doe v. Josephine County

Filing 267

ORDER: Josephine County District Attorney in camera review. Signed on 11/20/2014 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke.Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-02080-CL, 1:13-cv-00724-CL, 1:13-cv-00825-CL (rsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTI-IE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3,
and JOHN DOE 4;
Plaintiffs;

Case No. 1: 12-cv-02080-CL
Consolidated with:
1: 13-cv-00825-CL
1: 13-cv-00724-CL

V.

JOSEPHINE COUNTY;
Defendant.

JOHN DOE 5, JOl-IN DOE 6, and JOHN
DOE 7;
Plaintiffs;
v.

JOSEPHINE COUNTY;
Defendant.

I I I
I I I
I I I

Page I -ORDER

ORDER

JACK DOE, JACK DOE 3, and JACK
DOE4;
Plaintiff;
V.

JOSEPHINE COUNTY;
Defendant.

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.
On November 6, 2014, Josephine County District Attorney Stephen Campbell submitted
a file to the Court for in camera review. Mr. Campbell compiled the file in response to Plaintiffs'
counsel's subpoena, dated October 30, 2014. It is comprised of police investigation notes, police
reports, witness statements, court records, and other documents concerning Raymond Luckey
and juvenile probationers.
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense."

FED.

R. Clv. P. 26(b)(l).

Under

FED.

R. Ev1. 401 's two-part test,

evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence" and is "of consequence in determining the action." "Relevant information
need not be admissible at trial" in order to justify discovery.

FED.

R. C1v. P. 26(b)(1). Rather, it

simply must appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." ld.
The Plaintiffs in this case seek to vindicate the rights of juveniles allegedly abused by
Luckey while in the care of Defendant's probation system. The documents produced for in

camera review are relevant to that purpose. They appear reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, given the apparent scarcity of documentation from
the time period in question, Plaintiffs' need for the contents of this file appears quite high.

Page 2- ORDER

Mr. Campbell asserts the records are exempt from disclosure under Oregon law. This
Court, however, is not bound by state law. Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir.
2003) (noting district court could have ordered disclosure ofjuvenile file notwithstanding a state
law), abrogated on other grounds by Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012). Nevertheless, the
Court is mindful of the state's important interest in protecting the private information of juvenile
probationers, their families, and others involved in the system.
Weighing the state's interest in keeping juvenile information confidential against the
Plaintiffs' need for such information, the Court finds the scale tips in favor of disclosure. The
parties have entered into a stipulated Protective Order (#19), approved by the Court, that is
detailed, comprehensive, and sufficient to protect the privacy interests at stake. Accordingly, the
Court orders production of the tile pursuant to the Protective Order (#19). The Court will make
copies of the file available for both parties to pick up from the Clerk's Of!ice in the Medford
Federal Courthouse.

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3- ORDER