Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01483-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF CECIL ELKINS, JR., et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

On November 3, 2015, the Court conducted an informal discovery dispute conference 

and issued an order requiring Defendant to serve supplemental discovery responses pertaining to 

prior complaints of excessive force made against Defendant Pelayo. (ECF Nos. 81, 82.) On 

November 25, 2015, the Court conducted a second informal discovery dispute conference. 

Counsel Nichelle Jones appeared telephonically for Plaintiff and counsel Neli Palma appeared 

telephonically for Defendant. 

In the November 3, 2015 order, the Court considered Defendant’s arguments regarding 

the privacy rights of the individuals and privileges claimed by Defendant. The Court balanced 

the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages, Sanchez v. City of Santa 

Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), and found that Plaintiffs’ need for the information 

outweighs any privacy interest, (ECF No. 82 at 4-5). The Court also found that Defendant had 

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 88 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 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

2

not demonstrated that any of the information sought was entitled to a privilege and Defendant 

was ordered to produce prior complaints of excessive force made against Defendant Pelayo. (Id.

at 6.) The order allowed Defendant to redact addresses, dates of birth, and financial information. 

(Id. at 6-7.) 

Pursuant to the November 3, 2015 order, Defendant served a supplemental response in 

which an excessive force complaint was produced. Defendant redacted information on the 

witnesses from the complaint, including the names of the complaining witness and police 

witnesses. At issue here is whether Defendant is required to produce the unredacted version of 

the reports. As addressed in the November 3, 2015 order, any privacy right concerns are 

outweighed by Plaintiff’s need for this information and there is a protective order which limits to 

whom this information may be disclosed. Further, while Defendant again argues that the official 

information privilege applies, Defendant has not demonstrated that the information is entitled to 

such a privilege. (See ECF No. 82 at 5-6.)

To clarify this Court’s prior order, Defendant may redact addresses, date of birth, and 

financial information for Defendant Pelayo. Further, such information may be redacted for other 

law enforcement officers. However, the names of the law enforcement officers and the name 

and personal information of civilian witnesses shall be produced.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by close of business on November 30, 

2015, Defendant shall produce the documents with redactions consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 88 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 2