Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01101/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01101-8/pdf.json

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

---

1

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John Roettgen,

Plaintiff,

v.

Foston, et al,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13cv1101-GPC-BGS

ORDER 

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF WITHHELD 

DOCUMENT 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT NONPARTY MOTION FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

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 

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 126 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 5
2

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to the Court and the Court has reviewed the document. 

II. RELEVANT LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

privacy. See Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604–05 (C.D. Cal. 1995) 

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 126 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 5
3

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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

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

paragraph ending in “June 26, 2014, while in . . .” 

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 126 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 5
4

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

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

paragraph ending with “while in her office.”

AGO-442: The line starting with “On December 9, 2014 . . .” and ending with 

“(Exhibit 13)”

AGO-448: The fourth full paragraph on the page starting with “Regarding asking . 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

116)

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

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

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

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

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

Sanchez. 

V. CONCLUSION

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

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

///

///

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 126 Filed 09/09/16 Page 4 of 5
5

13cv1101-GPC-BGS

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

///

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

Non-Party Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 9, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-01101-GPC-BGS Document 126 Filed 09/09/16 Page 5 of 5