Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE PULIDO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. LUNES, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS WITHHELD PURSUANT 

TO THE “OFFICIAL INFORMATION 

PRIVILEGE” WITH REDACTIONS

(ECF No. 85)

Plaintiff Jose Pulido (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed on July 28, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges a violation of his 

Eighth Amendment rights based upon defendants’ failure to protect him while in the custody of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in Corcoran, California. 

On August 25, 2016, the Court issued an order directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff 

with certain documents withheld under the official information privilege and provided in 

camera to the Court as described in the order. (Doc. 77, p. 7). Part I of that order included the 

legal standard concerning official information privilege, and Part II of the order applied the 

legal analysis to the documents being withheld on the basis of the privilege. (Id. at 3-7). 

The Court further directed Defendants as follows:

Within 30 days from this order, Defendants shall either provide Plaintiff with all

additional documents and materials regarding the Investigation by the Office of

Internal Affairs of this incident, provide them to the Court for further in camera

review, or notify Plaintiff and the Court that they are not in Defendants’ 

possession custody and control. This includes all written or recorded interviews 

associated with the investigation, as well as underlying documents referred to in 

the investigation report.

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 89 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(Id. at 7)

On September 23, 2016, Defendants Cruz and Shaw filed a request for in camera

review of the additional documents and materials regarding the investigation by the Office of 

Internal Affairs. (Doc. 85). Defendants submitted one set of documents without redactions and 

another set with limited proposed redactions of confidential personal information. 

The Court has reviewed the documents, applied the legal standard articulated in Part I 

of the August 25 order (Doc. 77), and now orders certain disclosures as follows:

Exhibit 19 is described by Cruz and Shaw as “Post Order for Facility C Yard Sergeant, 

Post Order #230408, total 4 pages” (Doc. 85 at 5). This document describes the duties and 

responsibilities of Peace Officers with respect to a particular duty post. The document does not 

appear to be highly relevant to Plaintiff’s case, and the Court can understand how production of 

this document to a prisoner could cause a security concern. After application of the balancing 

test, the Court finds that Exhibit 19 is properly withheld pursuant to official information 

privilege.

However, Exhibits 2, 6-13, 15-18 shall be provided to Plaintiff, as redacted. For this 

group of Exhibits, the potential benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential disadvantages. 

This group of Exhibits primarily contains highly relevant narrative reports about the incident in 

this case. On the other hand, the potential disadvantage of production of this information to 

Plaintiff in redacted form does not appear to be very significant because these Exhibits do not 

discuss security issues. 

For example, Exhibit 12 consists of Plaintiff’s own hand written statements about the

incident in this case. The court does not see any good faith basis to withhold this document

under the official information privilege, and it calls into question counsel's good faith and 

adherence to the law regarding this privilege. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Cruz and Shaw shall produce 

Exhibits 2, 6-13, 15-18 with the submitted redactions to Plaintiff within 14 days of this order.

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 89 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 89 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 3