Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763-4/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

1Plaintiff brought this matter before the court through two letter briefs dated August 11, 2005 (Docket

Nos. 40, 41). Defendants and subpoenaed parties responded in an August 19, 2005 letter (Docket No. 50).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY TILLIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03763 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents responsive to his

first set of document requests and to three third-party subpoenas.1 Defendants and the subpoenaed parties

(collectively, “defendants”) have objected to the document requests, arguing that the documents are privileged

and that the requests are vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS plaintiff’s motions to compel in part.

1. Official Information Privilege

Defendants assert that many of the requested documents are protected by the “official information”

privilege, a qualified privilege under federal law that covers official information such as government personnel

files. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990). The official information

privilege operates through a balancing test: “[t]o determine whether the informationsought is privileged, courts

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

privilege bars discovery.” Id. at 1034.

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 12
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

Before a court engages in this balancing test, however, the party asserting the privilege must properly

invoke the privilege by filing a declaration or affidavit froman officialwith controlover the matter. This affidavit

must set forth the following:

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

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

material in question; (3) a specific identification of the governmental or privacy interests that

would be 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 create a

substantialrisk of harm to significant governmental or privacy interest; (5) and a projection of

how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure were made.

Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987); see also Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D

292, 301 (C.D. Cal. 1992).

Under this standard, neither of the affidavits that defendants have provided is sufficient to invoke the

officialinformationprivilege. To begin with, neither affidavit explicitly states that the specific documents at issue

have been kept confidential. More importantly, neither affidavit addresses the specific consequences of

disclosure;rather, both assert in almost identicalterms that disclosure will harmthe generalability ofthe agency

to conduct investigations because it will deter individualsfrombeing completely honest in the future. Numerous

courts have found, however, that “‘a generalassertion that a police department’s internal investigatory system

would be harmed by disclosure of the documents is insufficient’ to meet the threshold test for invoking the

official information privilege.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 614 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting

Chism, 159 F.R.D. 531, 534-35 (C.D. Cal. 1994)). Rather, “the party resisting discovery ‘must specifically

describe how disclosure of the requested documents in that particular case . . . would be harmful.’” Id.

(quoting Chism, 159 F.R.D. at 535) (emphasis in original). In addition, neither affidavit addresses how a

carefully crafted protective order could protect the confidentiality interests of the government agencies, and

neither discusses the consequences that would occur if disclosure occurred.

Because the affidavits submitted by the defendants are insufficient, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s

motion to compeldiscoverywithrespect to documents withheld on the basis ofthe officialinformationprivilege.

Any disclosure, however, shall be subject to the terms of the protective order discussed below.

2. Staff Personnel Files

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 12
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

2Defendants also base their argument on section 832.7 ofthe California Penal Code, which creates an

evidentiary privilege for peace officer personnel records. Despite defendants’ argument, “[q]uestions of

privilege that arise in the course of the adjudication of federal rights are ‘governed by [principles of federal

common law].’” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S. Ct. 2619, 2625 (1989) (quoting Fed.

R. Evid. 501). While “state law may provide a useful referent, . . . it is not controlling.” Breed v. United

States District Court, 542 F.2d 1114, 1115 (9th Cir. 1976). “In cases involving section 1983 claims, courts

have repeatedly held that police personnel files and documents are relevant and admissible.” Green v. Baca,

226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Thus, the Court rejects defendants’ argument that information may be

withheld on the basis of Cal. Penal Code § 832.7. 

3

Plaintiff has also requested the personnelfiles ofthe prison staff members who are alleged to have been

involved with the assault on plaintiff. Defendants claim that this request covers confidential information thatis

protected by a “right to privacy and personal security.”2

FederalRule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2) allows a court to limit the use ofdiscovery ifit findsthat “the

burden . . . of the proposed discovery outweighs itslikely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). A number of

courts have found that personal information contained in a personnel file may be withheld on the grounds that

it is unduly burdensome to produce. See, e.g., Hinton v. Conner, 225 F.R.D. 513 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (“[I]n

all instances where employment records of non-parties are sought, there is a privacy interest involved . . . .”);

Onwuka v. Fed. Express Corp., 178 F.R.D. 508, 517-18 (D. Minn. 1997); Coker v. Duke & Co., Inc.,

177 F.R.D. 682 (M.D. Ala. 1998); but see Smith v. Goord, 222 F.R.D. 238 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that

former prisoner was entitled to discovery of personnel files of named defendants). In the law enforcement

context, concerns over the security of government employees can heighten the potential burden of disclosure

ofpersonal information. See Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1063 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding

that concern overthe release oflaw enforcement officers’ personalinformationto defense counselformembers

of a violent gang “rises to constitutional dimensions”).

The Court finds that the requests for personnelfiles ofthe staff involved in the assault on plaintiff to be

relevant to the case at hand. Information in the files relating to job performance, inmate complaints, and other

employment-related matters is clearly highly relevant to plaintiff’s case. Personal information, however, such

as the home addresses of staff members, information on family or family members, and similar material is

understandably sensitive, and need not be produced.

The Court therefore ORDERS defendants to produce those portions ofthe personnel filesthat plaintiff

has requested that relate to the employment of prison staff members alleged to be involved in the assault on

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 12
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

4

plaintiff. Strictly personalmatter may be redacted fromthe file. Any redacted material, however, must appear

on defendants’ privilege log.

3. Inmate Complaints

Plaintiff has also requested all documents dated after 1990 regarding inmate complaints about abuse

based upon race or gang affiliation. Given that plaintiff has alleged that he was assaulted by gang members

based upon his refusal to join their gang, such information is relevant to his case. Defendants, however, have

made a strong showing that this informationis difficult to produce. Specifically, defendants argue that, because

inmate complaints are not computerized or indexed by subject matter, “to locate each document requested

would involve searching through the central files of each inmate in this state.” Def. Br. at 5.

Plaintiff has not established why a 15-year history ofinmate complaintsis necessary to prepare his case.

In light of the burden of responding that defendants claim, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for inmate

complaintsis overly broad and therefore DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compelwith respect to the requests for

inmate complaints.

3. Rule 26 Initial Disclosures

Plaintiff also requests that the Court order defendants to provide initial disclosures, as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Defendants were originally exempted from providing such disclosures

because this actionwas “brought without counsel by a person in custody of . . . a state.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(1)(E)(iii). Plaintiff argues, however, that because he now has counsel, defendants should be required to

provide initial disclosures.

Subsection (a)(1)(E)(iii) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was added by the 2000 amendments

to the rule in order to “identify cases in which there is likely to be little or no discovery, or in which initial

disclosure appears unlikely to contribute to the effective development of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 adv.

comm. notes. The Court agrees with plaintiffthat, now that he is represented by counsel, initial disclosures will

be useful in helping discovery proceed in an orderly fashion. The Court therefore ORDERS defendants to

provide initial disclosures to plaintiff.

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 12
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

3Plaintiff has challenged defendants’ use of boilerplate objections in general, but has not referenced

specific document requests. Without specific reference to document requests, the Court is unable to rule on

the propriety of defendants’ objections. The Court notes, however, that many of defendants’ objections

appear to be boilerplate and unrelated to the document requests at issue. See, e.g., Defendants’ Amended

Reponses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production ofDocuments, Request No. 1 (raising a host ofobjections

to the very narrow request for “Investigative Reports dated August 14, 2003 concerning Inmate TILLIS, D66674, Assault and Battery while at Salinas Valley State Prison.”). 

5

4. Boilerplate Objections

Plaintiff also challenges defendants’ use ofboilerplate objections intheir discovery responses. The only

specific document request that plaintiffrefers to,3 however, is Request No. 1 in his subpoena to Salinas Valley

State Prison, which requests “all Documents relating to former inmate Gregory Tillis, including, without

limitation, inmate records and files, medical records, incident reports, administrative reports, parole reports,

and appeals records.” Defendants have raised a host of objections to this request, including overbreadth,

vagueness, and undue burden. The Court, however, findsthe request fairly straightforward and highly relevant

to plaintiff’s case. Salinas Valley State Prison is therefore ORDERED to produce all documents in its

possession, custody, or control that are responsive to plaintiff’s request.

4. Protective Order

The final point of contention between the parties is the scope of the protective order that should issue

in this case. Plaintiff acknowledges the need for a protective order, but argues that defendants’ proposed order

is too restrictive and will drastically impede plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this case. Both parties have provided

proposed orders to the Court, and they request that the Court decide which shall be imposed.

As an initial matter, “[a] party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it

seeks to protect, ofshowing thatspecific prejudice or harmwillresult if no protective order is granted.” Foltz

v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Rivera v. Nibco, Inc.,

364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). Given that defendants seek to impose a more restrictive protective

order on discovery in this litigation, they bear the burden of proving that they will be harmed absent such an

order. Defendants have notmade any specific showing of harm that will result if plaintiff’s protective order is

used in place of defendants’. Instead, defendants merely recite the general policy against disclosure to

prisoners of information regarding other prisoners. This is insufficient. Moreover, plaintiff’s protective order

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 5 of 12
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

6

appears to be reasonable and highly respectful of the need for limited disclosure of sensitive information. The

Court will therefore ORDER that all discovery in this case occur pursuant to the protective order that plaintiff

has supplied.

5. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compelis GRANTED with respect to documents being

withheld on the grounds of official information privilege, to staff personnel files, and to documents responsive

to plaintiff’s Request No. 1 in the subpoena to Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is

DENIED with respect to plaintiff’srequests forinmate complaintsrelated to gang activity. Further, defendants

are ORDERED to provide initialdisclosures to plaintiff within 15 days of this Order. Finally, discovery in this

case shall proceed according to the protective order that plaintiff has supplied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/19/05

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 6 of 12
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

1Plaintiff brought this matter before the court through two letter briefs dated August 11, 2005 (Docket

Nos. 40, 41). Defendants and subpoenaed parties responded in an August 19, 2005 letter (Docket No. 50).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY TILLIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03763 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents responsive to his

first set of document requests and to three third-party subpoenas.1 Defendants and the subpoenaed parties

(collectively, “defendants”) have objected to the document requests, arguing that the documents are privileged

and that the requests are vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS plaintiff’s motions to compel in part.

1. Official Information Privilege

Defendants assert that many of the requested documents are protected by the “official information”

privilege, a qualified privilege under federal law that covers official information such as government personnel

files. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990). The official information

privilege operates through a balancing test: “[t]o determine whether the informationsought is privileged, courts

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

privilege bars discovery.” Id. at 1034.

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 7 of 12
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

Before a court engages in this balancing test, however, the party asserting the privilege must properly

invoke the privilege by filing a declaration or affidavit froman officialwith controlover the matter. This affidavit

must set forth the following:

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

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

material in question; (3) a specific identification of the governmental or privacy interests that

would be 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 create a

substantialrisk of harm to significant governmental or privacy interest; (5) and a projection of

how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure were made.

Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987); see also Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D

292, 301 (C.D. Cal. 1992).

Under this standard, neither of the affidavits that defendants have provided is sufficient to invoke the

officialinformationprivilege. To begin with, neither affidavit explicitly states that the specific documents at issue

have been kept confidential. More importantly, neither affidavit addresses the specific consequences of

disclosure;rather, both assert in almost identicalterms that disclosure will harmthe generalability ofthe agency

to conduct investigations because it will deter individualsfrombeing completely honest in the future. Numerous

courts have found, however, that “‘a generalassertion that a police department’s internal investigatory system

would be harmed by disclosure of the documents is insufficient’ to meet the threshold test for invoking the

official information privilege.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 614 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting

Chism, 159 F.R.D. 531, 534-35 (C.D. Cal. 1994)). Rather, “the party resisting discovery ‘must specifically

describe how disclosure of the requested documents in that particular case . . . would be harmful.’” Id.

(quoting Chism, 159 F.R.D. at 535) (emphasis in original). In addition, neither affidavit addresses how a

carefully crafted protective order could protect the confidentiality interests of the government agencies, and

neither discusses the consequences that would occur if disclosure occurred.

Because the affidavits submitted by the defendants are insufficient, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s

motion to compeldiscoverywithrespect to documents withheld on the basis ofthe officialinformationprivilege.

Any disclosure, however, shall be subject to the terms of the protective order discussed below.

2. Staff Personnel Files

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 8 of 12
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

2Defendants also base their argument on section 832.7 ofthe California Penal Code, which creates an

evidentiary privilege for peace officer personnel records. Despite defendants’ argument, “[q]uestions of

privilege that arise in the course of the adjudication of federal rights are ‘governed by [principles of federal

common law].’” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S. Ct. 2619, 2625 (1989) (quoting Fed.

R. Evid. 501). While “state law may provide a useful referent, . . . it is not controlling.” Breed v. United

States District Court, 542 F.2d 1114, 1115 (9th Cir. 1976). “In cases involving section 1983 claims, courts

have repeatedly held that police personnel files and documents are relevant and admissible.” Green v. Baca,

226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Thus, the Court rejects defendants’ argument that information may be

withheld on the basis of Cal. Penal Code § 832.7. 

3

Plaintiff has also requested the personnelfiles ofthe prison staff members who are alleged to have been

involved with the assault on plaintiff. Defendants claim that this request covers confidential information thatis

protected by a “right to privacy and personal security.”2

FederalRule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2) allows a court to limit the use ofdiscovery ifit findsthat “the

burden . . . of the proposed discovery outweighs itslikely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). A number of

courts have found that personal information contained in a personnel file may be withheld on the grounds that

it is unduly burdensome to produce. See, e.g., Hinton v. Conner, 225 F.R.D. 513 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (“[I]n

all instances where employment records of non-parties are sought, there is a privacy interest involved . . . .”);

Onwuka v. Fed. Express Corp., 178 F.R.D. 508, 517-18 (D. Minn. 1997); Coker v. Duke & Co., Inc.,

177 F.R.D. 682 (M.D. Ala. 1998); but see Smith v. Goord, 222 F.R.D. 238 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that

former prisoner was entitled to discovery of personnel files of named defendants). In the law enforcement

context, concerns over the security of government employees can heighten the potential burden of disclosure

ofpersonal information. See Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055, 1063 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding

that concern overthe release oflaw enforcement officers’ personalinformationto defense counselformembers

of a violent gang “rises to constitutional dimensions”).

The Court finds that the requests for personnelfiles ofthe staff involved in the assault on plaintiff to be

relevant to the case at hand. Information in the files relating to job performance, inmate complaints, and other

employment-related matters is clearly highly relevant to plaintiff’s case. Personal information, however, such

as the home addresses of staff members, information on family or family members, and similar material is

understandably sensitive, and need not be produced.

The Court therefore ORDERS defendants to produce those portions ofthe personnel filesthat plaintiff

has requested that relate to the employment of prison staff members alleged to be involved in the assault on

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 9 of 12
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

4

plaintiff. Strictly personalmatter may be redacted fromthe file. Any redacted material, however, must appear

on defendants’ privilege log.

3. Inmate Complaints

Plaintiff has also requested all documents dated after 1990 regarding inmate complaints about abuse

based upon race or gang affiliation. Given that plaintiff has alleged that he was assaulted by gang members

based upon his refusal to join their gang, such information is relevant to his case. Defendants, however, have

made a strong showing that this informationis difficult to produce. Specifically, defendants argue that, because

inmate complaints are not computerized or indexed by subject matter, “to locate each document requested

would involve searching through the central files of each inmate in this state.” Def. Br. at 5.

Plaintiff has not established why a 15-year history ofinmate complaintsis necessary to prepare his case.

In light of the burden of responding that defendants claim, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for inmate

complaintsis overly broad and therefore DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compelwith respect to the requests for

inmate complaints.

3. Rule 26 Initial Disclosures

Plaintiff also requests that the Court order defendants to provide initial disclosures, as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Defendants were originally exempted from providing such disclosures

because this actionwas “brought without counsel by a person in custody of . . . a state.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(1)(E)(iii). Plaintiff argues, however, that because he now has counsel, defendants should be required to

provide initial disclosures.

Subsection (a)(1)(E)(iii) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was added by the 2000 amendments

to the rule in order to “identify cases in which there is likely to be little or no discovery, or in which initial

disclosure appears unlikely to contribute to the effective development of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 adv.

comm. notes. The Court agrees with plaintiffthat, now that he is represented by counsel, initial disclosures will

be useful in helping discovery proceed in an orderly fashion. The Court therefore ORDERS defendants to

provide initial disclosures to plaintiff.

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 10 of 12
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

3Plaintiff has challenged defendants’ use of boilerplate objections in general, but has not referenced

specific document requests. Without specific reference to document requests, the Court is unable to rule on

the propriety of defendants’ objections. The Court notes, however, that many of defendants’ objections

appear to be boilerplate and unrelated to the document requests at issue. See, e.g., Defendants’ Amended

Reponses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production ofDocuments, Request No. 1 (raising a host ofobjections

to the very narrow request for “Investigative Reports dated August 14, 2003 concerning Inmate TILLIS, D66674, Assault and Battery while at Salinas Valley State Prison.”). 

5

4. Boilerplate Objections

Plaintiff also challenges defendants’ use ofboilerplate objections intheir discovery responses. The only

specific document request that plaintiffrefers to,3 however, is Request No. 1 in his subpoena to Salinas Valley

State Prison, which requests “all Documents relating to former inmate Gregory Tillis, including, without

limitation, inmate records and files, medical records, incident reports, administrative reports, parole reports,

and appeals records.” Defendants have raised a host of objections to this request, including overbreadth,

vagueness, and undue burden. The Court, however, findsthe request fairly straightforward and highly relevant

to plaintiff’s case. Salinas Valley State Prison is therefore ORDERED to produce all documents in its

possession, custody, or control that are responsive to plaintiff’s request.

4. Protective Order

The final point of contention between the parties is the scope of the protective order that should issue

in this case. Plaintiff acknowledges the need for a protective order, but argues that defendants’ proposed order

is too restrictive and will drastically impede plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this case. Both parties have provided

proposed orders to the Court, and they request that the Court decide which shall be imposed.

As an initial matter, “[a] party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it

seeks to protect, ofshowing thatspecific prejudice or harmwillresult if no protective order is granted.” Foltz

v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Rivera v. Nibco, Inc.,

364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). Given that defendants seek to impose a more restrictive protective

order on discovery in this litigation, they bear the burden of proving that they will be harmed absent such an

order. Defendants have notmade any specific showing of harm that will result if plaintiff’s protective order is

used in place of defendants’. Instead, defendants merely recite the general policy against disclosure to

prisoners of information regarding other prisoners. This is insufficient. Moreover, plaintiff’s protective order

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 11 of 12
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

6

appears to be reasonable and highly respectful of the need for limited disclosure of sensitive information. The

Court will therefore ORDER that all discovery in this case occur pursuant to the protective order that plaintiff

has supplied.

5. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compelis GRANTED with respect to documents being

withheld on the grounds of official information privilege, to staff personnel files, and to documents responsive

to plaintiff’s Request No. 1 in the subpoena to Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is

DENIED with respect to plaintiff’srequests forinmate complaintsrelated to gang activity. Further, defendants

are ORDERED to provide initialdisclosures to plaintiff within 15 days of this Order. Finally, discovery in this

case shall proceed according to the protective order that plaintiff has supplied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/19/05

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 65 Filed 10/19/05 Page 12 of 12