Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02689/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02689-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JAIL

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-01-2689 SBA (EMC)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Docket No. 109)

Defendants’ motion came on for hearing on April 26, 2006. Having considered the papers

filed in support and in opposition to the motion and the argument of counsel, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion as

follows for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing.

1. Internal Affairs Files of Individual Peace Officer Defendants

Apart from the official information privilege asserted, there is a threshold question of

relevancy. Generally such records are relevant if they relate to the complainant or involve conduct

which bears some similarity to the alleged wrongdoing in the case at bar. Defendants contend that

the subject files contain matters entirely unrelated and thus have no probative value. Given the

sensitivity of the information requested, the Court finds it appropriate to examine the documents in

camera. It will do so for purposes of determining relevancy and evaluation of the official

information privilege. It will consider the privilege even though the Navarro affidavit does not

satisfy the standards set forth in Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613-14 (N.D. Cal. 1995)

Case 4:01-cv-02689-SBA Document 127 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

and Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987), since the documents will be

examined in camera in any event. The documents shall be submitted by May 4, 2006.

2. Internal Affairs Investigations of Health Care Treatment Complaints

These are facially relevant given the allegations of the complaint and the Monell claim. 

Although Defendants assert the official information privilege, the Navarro declaration does not

address with sufficient specificity the identification of governmental or privacy interests which are

threatened by disclosure, how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective order fails to

protect those interests, and a projection as to the amount of harm that would ensue. The documents

shall be produced under a protective order and with the names of individual complainants redacted

to protect their privacy interests. The Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

3. Individual Defendants’ Personnel Files

These have been produced, thus mooting the issue.

4. Personnel Files of Non-Defendant Officers and Health Care Staff

These are sought to show training and policy. The request is extremely broad and likely to

contain little probative evidence. The burden outweighs the benefits under Rule 26(b) and the

privacy interests implicated outweigh their likely relevance. Evidence of training or lack thereof can

be obtained via other means such as request for production of documents on training procedures,

polices, and manuals, depositions of training officers, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and depositions of

the named individual defendants. The Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

5. Health Care Complaints and Request Slips by Third Party Prisoners

These documents are relevant to the Monell and state law claims. As agreed to by the parties

at the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel (for counsel’s eyes only) shall review the documents and select

those it wishes produced. Those produced will be subject to the protective order and the names of

individual prisoners shall be redacted to protect their privacy interests. Defendants’ motion is

DENIED.

6. Health Care Staff Meeting Agendas and Minutes

The Court finds that California Evidence Code § 1157 does not apply. It finds Leon v.

County of San Diego, 202 F.R.D. 631 (S.D. Cal. 2001) persuasive. That conclusion is supported by

Case 4:01-cv-02689-SBA Document 127 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

the courts’ rejection of the analogous self-critical analysis privilege. See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 620,

citing Dowling v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423, 425 n.1 (9th Cir. 1992). Individual

names of patients shall be redacted and the documents shall be produced under protective order. 

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

7. Contra Costa County Health Services Quality Assurance Database

The Defendants shall produce those documents which pertain to health care provided to

prisoners as those are relevant to Monell and the state claims. Documents pertaining to nonprisoners do not appear to be relevant, at least in the absence of evidence indicating a systemic

practice or policy that transcends the treatment of inmates. No such evidence has been proffered.

Again the names of individual patients shall be redacted. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART.

Apart from the documents ordered for in camera review, the documents ordered herein shall

be produced within 14 days of this Order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 109.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:01-cv-02689-SBA Document 127 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3