Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07767/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07767-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

* E-filed 4/30/08 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DWIGHT WATSON; DANIEL FARIAS;

LAUREN WATSON; and NICOLE WATSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GLENN ALBIN; DAVID MENDEZ; FRANK

ST. CLAIR; MIKE D'ANTONIO; MIKE

RUBINO; SANTA CLARA COUNTY; STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-50,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-07767 RMW

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

COMPEL

Re: Docket No. 89 

 (originally Docket No. 79)

The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint stem from a probation search conducted by the Santa

Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team. The plaintiffs are Dwight Watson and his three

children: Daniel Farias, Lauren Watson and Nicole Watson. The only remaining defendants are

agents Glenn Albin, David Mendez, and Mike D'Antonio. A jury trial is set to begin on May 19,

2008. Plaintiffs now move to compel production of discovery related to Officer Glenn Albin. 

Having considered the papers and arguments of counsel, the court orders as follows: 

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 140 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 California Penal Code requires law enforcement agencies to investigate complaints

against officers and retain these confidential records as part of the officer’s personnel

records. See Cal. Pen. Code § 832.5, 832.7. Absent a court order, government employers

may face criminal penalties for disclosing records. Cal. Pen. Code § 832.7. A federal court

order will protect the County from any criminal penalties associated with releasing personnel

files. Therefore, this Court does not apply California law to the instant motion.

2

Through discovery, Plaintiffs sought all documents that reference or relate to complaints

that Officer Albin used excessive force, made untrue statements in a police report, or showed

prejudice toward a person because of his or her race. See Request for Production of Documents 1-

2; also see Subpoena to the San Jose Police Department Custodian of Records, Requests 1-3. Albin

objects to producing any responsive documents on the grounds of official information privilege,

right to privacy, and California law.1 He seeks in camera review to determine which documents

should be produced. 

Legal Standard

This court recognizes a right of privacy respecting confidential law enforcement records. 

Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D.

603 (N.D. Cal. 1995). When assessing the confidentiality of such records court utilize a “case by

case balancing analysis, in which the interests of the party seeking discovery are weighed against

the interest of the governmental entity asserting the privilege.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661. If an

individual’s privacy is at stake, courts balance “the need for the information sought against the

privacy right asserted.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. However, “a carefully drafted protective order

could minimize the impact” of disclosure. Id. 

For official information privilege, this court uses the Kelly five prong standard. A party

seeking non-disclosure must submit an affidavit from an agency official which includes the

following: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the material in issue and has

maintained its confidentiality; (2) a statement that the official has personally reviewed the material;

(3) specific identification of the governmental or privacy interests threatened by disclosure of the

material to plaintiff and/or his lawyer; (4) a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully

crafted protective order would still create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 140 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 5
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

privacy interests; and finally, (5) a projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened

interests if the disclosure were made. Id. at 670. If the defendant’s submissions are sufficient, the

court will order an in camera review and offer defendant the opportunity to submit a brief and

additional supporting material. If the defendant’s submissions are insufficient, then the court will

order disclosure of the documents. Id. at 671. 

Discussion

Albin relies on the declaration of Lieutenant Larry Esquivel to meet the Kelly elements.

Plaintiffs say that the declaration is insufficient to meet Kelly's "substantial threshold showing." As

such, they say in camera review is unnecessary and responsive documents should be produced. 

First and Second Prongs: Plaintiffs admit that the first two Kelly elements are satisfied. 

Third Prong: Albin's showing under the third requirement, dealing with specification of the

interests threatened by disclosure, is underwhelming. He says that the privacy interests of the

police officers identified in the records are implicated by disclosure and that the court should be

particularly sensitive when officer witness statements were compelled by superiors. Albin also

argues that the conclusions of the Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) officers should not be permitted

because disclosure will discourage exhaustive investigations and candid analysis. Finally, Albin

says that disclosure of statements from members of the public should not be allowed because it will

discourage witnesses from coming forward with information. 

Fourth Prong: With respect to the fourth element, Lt. Esquivel claims that a carefully

crafted protective order would be insufficient because disclosure would still discourage exhaustive

investigation of incidents and because members of the public would be less likely to come forward

with information. No protective order is currently in place to cover the production of these records.

Fifth Prong: Under this requirement, the defendants were to project how much harm would

be done to the threatened interests if disclosure is permitted. Instead of responding to that element,

the declaration of Lt. Esquivel asserts that the following harms will result if disclosure is permitted:

disclosure of identification and personal data of officers involved, names of witnesses would be

improperly disclosed. It appears that Albin is again arguing that the quality of IAU investigation of

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 140 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 5
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 The parties shall file a proposed protective order to cover the production of

these documents by the end of the business day on May 2, 2008. Since the trial is set to

begin in a few weeks, Albin will be required to turn over the documents very shortly after the

protective order is signed (a deadline will be included in that order). 

4

citizenship complaints could decrease and that the public would be discouraged from revealing

information. 

Albin's arguments that disclosure would discourage exhaustive internal investigations are

unpersuasive. Courts in this district have previously rejected such claims, and there is no reason to

depart from that reasoning here. See Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 672 and Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613-14. 

Furthermore, claims pertaining to the privacy interests of police officers are closely scrutinized

when the documents at issue are related to the officers' work with the police department. See Soto,

162 F.R.D. at 616 (suggesting that internal investigation files are not protected by right of privacy

when documents “related simply to the officers’ work as police officers”) (citing Denver

Policemen’s Protective Ass’n v. Lichtenstein, 660 F.2d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1981)). In addition to

these deficiencies under the Kelly threshold showing, Albin has not met the fifth requirement. 

Accordingly, Defendant shall produce all relevant, responsive documents within his possession,

custody or control. This production will be subject to an appropriate protective order.2 

However, because there is merit to Defendants' concerns as to the disclosure of names of

public witnesses and officers named in the records with no ties to this case, some redactions will be

permitted. Officer Albin may redact the following from the documents produced: any personally

identifying information, including names, of public witnesses (other than Plaintiffs) and of police

officers (other than Albin). The motion to compel is thus GRANTED IN PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/30/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 140 Filed 04/30/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Jennifer C. Addams jennifer.addams@doj.ca.gov, chere.deuel@doj.ca.gov 

Mark F. Bernal mark.bernal@cco.sccgov.org 

Michael J. Dodson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Wilfred T. Fong wil.fong@doj.ca.gov 

James Thomas Gotch gotchj@stubbsleone.com 

Sunil R. Kulkarni skulkarni@mofo.com, msousa@mofo.com 

Claudia Leed leedc@stubbsleone.com, suttonk@stubbsleone.com 

Louis A. Leone lleone@stubbsleone.com, suttonk@stubbsleone.com 

Mark William Martel markmartel@aol.com 

Timothy James Schmal , Esq TSchmal@bvsllp.com, jpl@bvsllp.com 

KC Waldron kcwaldron@mofo.com, klarson@mofo.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 4/30/08 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 140 Filed 04/30/08 Page 5 of 5