Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01174-11/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

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. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order requiring initial disclosures (Doc. 41), Defendants Cruz 

and Shaw provided a privilege log indicating they were withholding certain documents 

pursuant to the Official Information Privilege. During a telephonic discovery conference, as 

clarified in a subsequent order, the Court ordered Defendants Cruz and Shaw to submit for in 

camera review certain documents that were withheld from their initial disclosures and to 

submit briefing explaining their position. (Doc. 64). Defendants Cruz and Shaw timely 

submitted such documents for in camera review along with a brief in support of their purported 

privilege. 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 and orders certain disclosures. 

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 77 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 7
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

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

In Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1975), 

aff'd 426 U.S. 394 (1976), the 9th Circuit examined the government’s claim of the official 

information privilege as a basis to withhold documents sought under the Freedom of 

Information Act. In doing so, it explained that the “common law governmental privilege 

(encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a 

qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing interests of the requesting litigant and 

subject to disclosure . . . .” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 

192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) aff'd 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

The 9th Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring a balancing of interests and in 

camera review in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information privilege. See, 

e.g., Seminara v. City of Long Beach, 68 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming Magistrate Judge 

order compelling disclosure and stating “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege 

for official information. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th 

Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119 (1976). In determining whether information 

sought is privileged, we must employ a balancing test, weighing the potential benefits of 

disclosure against the potential disadvantages”); Breed v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of 

California 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“Also, as required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that 

in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of 

governmental privilege.’”). Furthremore, in Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 

1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), the 9th Circuit explained “[g]overnment personnel files are considered 

official information. To determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must 

weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is 

greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana (9th Cir. 1990) 936 F.2d 

1027, 1033-34, as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh'g 

(May 24, 1991) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

\\\

\\\

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 77 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 7
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

II. Application of Law to Documents Being Withheld

Defendants Cruz and Shaw have withheld reports, memoranda, and other documents 

related to a personnel investigation associated with the underlying event in this case. 

Specifically, the withheld documents include a settlement report, a decision approving a 

stipulation for settlement, a stipulation and release, a notice of certain personnel action, and a 

thorough investigation report. These documents generally concern a gathering of facts from 

documents and interviews related to the underlying event, and the conclusion and underlying 

action taken by the Office of Internal Affairs as a result of that conclusion. Notably, the 

underlying interviews, memoranda, and documents cited in the reports have not been included.1 

Defendants’ Brief relies on the Declaration of J. Barba in Support of Defendant Cruz’s 

and Shaw’s Privilege Log in Support of Initial Disclosures. (Doc. 56, at 18-20). That 

Declaration provides the following security concerns associated with the documents:

These documents contain personal information belonging to CDCR staff 

members, including their full names, dates of birth, home addresses, disciplinary 

history, employment history, among other information.

As mentioned above (see ¶ 16), the Information Practices Act of 1977, prohibits

public agencies from disclosing “any personal information in a manner that 

would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains.” Cal. 

Civ. Code § 1798.24. Also as mentioned above, disclosing correctional staff 

members’ personal information to inmates puts them, their families, and their 

property in danger, interferes with their authority, reduces their morale, and 

hampers CDCR’s ability to recruit and retain personnel. (See ¶¶ 17-18.)

This document also contains confidential information relating to inmate enemy

concerns. Inmates in CDCR prisons are routinely subject to intense pressure 

from other inmates, including prison gang members, to disclose private 

information they may learn about other inmates, particularly enemy information. 

Inmates who obtain confidential information are at risk from other inmates who 

may use force to obtain it, endangering the safety and security of CDCR

institutions, its inmates, and its staff.

 

1 To the extent the interviews, memoranda, and other supporting documents are within the 

possession, custody and control of defendants, they must be produced to plaintiff or provided to the Court, as 

ordered below.

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 77 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

This document also contains confidential statements made by third-party 

members concerning the incident that is the subject of inmate Pulido’s lawsuit. 

Disclosing this document would invade the privacy rights of these individuals, 

because staff-witnesses often cooperate with investigations with the expectation 

that their statements will remain confidential. Staff-witnesses might not be as 

forthright if they knew that their words could be used against an individual 

officer by an inmate-plaintiff.

Moreover, information obtained during staff investigations is maintained as

confidential to encourage staff-witnesses to make truthful statements, and to 

encourage investigating staff to accurately report their findings. Disclosing this 

type of information would hinder CDCR’s ability to conduct accurate and 

reliable investigations, which could jeopardize the safety and security of the 

prisons under its management.

Disclosure of such information would also educate inmates on the methods by 

which staff are evaluated. Armed with this information, inmates could falsely 

accuse staff members or otherwise manipulate the investigation process, thereby 

hampering future investigations.

Furthermore, inmates in California correctional facilities are routinely subject to

intense pressure from other inmates, including gang members, to disclose 

private information they may learn about others, including CDCR staff. Inmates 

who obtain confidential information are at risk from other inmates who may use 

force to obtain it, endangering the security of the correctional facilities and the 

safety of other inmates and staff. CDCR employees are routinely subject to false 

accusations of misconduct, and information allowing for more highly detailed

accusations is in high demand.

Additionally, documents relating to an Internal Affairs investigation are 

considered part of an officer’s personnel file. Documents in an officer’s 

personnel file are confidential under title 15, section 3321(a)(1) and (2) of the 

California Code of Regulations. Personnel files are further protected by the 

California Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights. See Cal. Gov’t Code, §§ 3300-

3313.

As an initial matter, the Court will allow Defendants to withhold personal information, 

as reflected in the redactions proposed by Defendants. The Court is sensitive to concerns about 

privacy and security of correctional officers and believes that the proposed redactions of such 

information is appropriate. This decision is without prejudice to a later request by Plaintiff for 

sufficient information about the witnesses to compel their attendance at deposition or trial, if 

necessary. 

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 77 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

The Court will also allow Defendants to withhold Privilege Log Item No. 3 in its 

entirety. Those documents concern a settlement report and related documents. They do not 

contain any unique factual information. Rather, they concern administrative actions taken as a 

result of the investigation. Such internal CDCR proceedings are not relevant to the factual 

questions before this Court and ultimately before the fact finders in this case, and any relevant 

information is outweighed by concerns regarding revealing internal CDCR procedures. 

Privilege Log Item No. 4 is a notice of adverse action. The Court considered this 

document carefully because it contains both opinions, which are not especially relevant and 

arguably inadmissible to the ultimate fact-finder, as well as facts and other relevant compiled 

information. The Court did not see any specific security issues, besides the general concern 

with disclosing information given by other witnesses, discussed further below. Ultimately, the 

Court orders production of the redacted version of the document with the following additional 

redactions: Section I, Section II, and Section V. Those sections do not include underlying 

factual information and do include sensitive CDCR procedures. Applying the required 

balancing test, the Court finds that the probative value of the remainder of the document 

outweighs the disadvantages to disclosure.

Privilege Log No. 5 is the Office of Internal Affairs, Investigation Report. It primarily 

contains summaries of interviews resulting from the investigation. The redacted version 

excludes personal information beyond the first initial and last names of the correctional 

officers. The information contained in the interviews is highly relevant and probative, and 

includes each percipient witness’s specific account of the events at issue in this case, including 

statements by each of the defendants. It also reviews all documentary evidence (while not 

attaching any such documents). It does not appear to reveal any CDCR security or safety 

issues. Moreover, to the extent it discusses enemy combatants, that information is already 

disclosed in Plaintiff’s complaint and related documents.

Indeed the only disadvantage to disclosure appears to be the potential that disclosure 

would make witnesses less likely to reveal truthful information in the future. On this issue, this 

Court agrees with the considered statements of the Court in Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 77 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) from the Northern District of California, a case which is widely 

cited by courts throughout this circuit in evaluating the official information privilege:

[Some] courts seem to assume that there is a greater risk that officers doing this 

work would not express their views honestly if they knew their words might be 

used against individual officers or the police department by a civil rights 

plaintiff. . . . There are at least two problems with the reasoning that supports 

this view. One is that the premise that supports it (that investigating officers will 

be less forthright in expressing their opinions if there is a risk of disclosure) is 

empirically unsupported and very debatable. The other problem with this line of 

reasoning is that after it acknowledges the great importance of enforcing federal 

civil rights policies it fails to articulate a reason for deciding to ascribe less 

weight to that enforcement effort than to the unmeasured harm to government 

interests that might follow from disclosure of evaluative material in internal 

affairs files. . . .

Since no empirical study supports the contention that the possibility of 

disclosure would make officers who participate (as respondents or as 

investigators) in internal affairs investigations less honest it is doubly important 

to examine the assumptions that underlie that contention. If we posit two 

alternatives, one in which there is no possibility of disclosure and one in which 

there is some possibility of disclosure to litigants (protective orders can be used 

to prevent disclosure to the public generally), and ask which is most conducive 

to candor, strong arguments can be advanced that it is the alternative in which 

there is some possibility of disclosure. A police officer who knows that no one 

from outside the law enforcement community will scrutinize his statements or 

his investigatory work may not feel the same level of pressure to be honest and 

accurate as would his counterpart in a system where some disclosure was 

possible. An officer might expect that someone within his organization would be 

less exacting in reviewing his statements or reports than someone from the 

outside, especially if the person from the outside already has substantial 

information about the incident under investigation and has a strong motive to 

challenge the accuracy of the officer's memory or the reliability of his 

conclusions. We rely in our adversary system of justice on the fear of being 

challenged and exposed by an opponent to keep litigants and lawyers honest. . . .

Fear of scrutiny by knowledgeable people motivated to be aggressive is likely to 

inspire police officers to conduct investigations and write reports that are less 

vulnerable to criticism, and the way to make them less vulnerable is to make 

them more thorough, more accurate and better reasoned. In short, officers will 

feel pressure to be honest and logical when they know that their statements and 

their work product will be subject to demanding analysis by people with 

knowledge of the events under investigation and considerable incentive to make 

sure that the truth comes out (i.e., a civil rights plaintiff and her lawyer). Thus 

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 77 Filed 08/25/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

there is a real possibility that officers working in closed systems will feel less 

pressure to be honest than officers who know that they may be forced to defend 

what they say and report. . . .

Id. at 664-66. In the end, the possibility that disclosure could discourage witnesses from 

speaking truthfully in future investigations does not outweigh the advantage of disclosure. The 

underlying assumption is questionable, as the Kerr court describes. Indeed, a witness who 

decided to speak out against a fellow correctional officer may very well be dismayed to learn 

that the correctional officer evaded liability because such a statement was withheld. 

Accordingly, Defendants are required to produce Privilege Log No. 5 with the 

submitted redactions.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 14 days from this order, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with documents 

withheld under the official information privilege and provided in camera to the 

Court as described in this order. 

2. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01174-DAD-EPG Document 77 Filed 08/25/16 Page 7 of 7