Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00066-9/pdf.json

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUFFEY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0066 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 13, 2015, the undersigned directed defendants to file a 

declaration in support of their invocation of the information privilege within ten days. (ECF No. 

61.) Ten days passed and defendants did not respond to the March 13, 2015 order. Accordingly, 

on April, 2015, the undersigned ordered defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be 

imposed for their failure to comply with the March 13, 2015 order. (ECF No. 69.)

On April 9, 2015, defendants filed a response to the order to show cause and a declaration 

in support of their invocation of the official information privilege. (ECF Nos. 71, 72.) Good 

cause appearing, the order to show cause is discharged. The undersigned herein addresses 

defendants’ declaration.

////

////

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 83 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2013, defendants assaulted him in apparent retaliation 

for plaintiff’s earlier statements which were disrespectful of defendant Guffey’s wife and family. 

(ECF No. 56 at 11-12.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants came to his cell armed with pepper 

spray. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff alleges that after his cell door was opened, defendant Ruiz grabbed 

his right arm and rammed plaintiff’s head into the edge of the door. (Id.) Allegedly in selfdefense, plaintiff punched defendant Ruiz which caused defendant Ruiz’s nose to bleed. (Id.) At 

this point, plaintiff’s cell door was closed. (Id.) Moments later, defendant Guffey returned to the 

tier and tried to clean up defendant Ruiz’s blood, but missed a spot. (Id.) On March 5, 2013, 

Sergeant Ortiz took photos of defendant Ruiz’s blood. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when 

defendants attacked him, defendant Ruiz mentioned that the attack was because of the 

disrespectful statements plaintiff made regarding defendant Guffey’s family. (Id. at 12.)

Legal Standard

“Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez 

v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[g]overnment personnel files are 

considered official information.”). This qualified privilege “must be formally asserted and 

delineated in order to be raised properly.” Kerr v. U.S. District Court, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 

1975) (internal citations omitted). To properly invoke the official information privilege, “[t]he 

claiming official must ‘have seen and considered the contents of the documents and himself have 

formed the view that on grounds of public interest they ought not to be produced’ and state with 

specificity the rationale of the claimed privilege.” Id.

The party invoking the privilege must at the outset make a “substantial threshold 

showing” by way of a declaration of affidavit from a responsible official with personal 

knowledge of the matters to be attested to in the affidavit. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 

603, 613 (N.D.Cal. 1995). The affidavit must include:

(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 in 

question; (3) a specific identification of the governmental or 

privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the 

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 83 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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

disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective order would 

create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or 

privacy interests, and (5) a projection of how much harm would be 

done to the threatened interests if disclosure were made.

Id. (quoting Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D.Cal. 1987).

If the party meets the threshold showing, the court balances the interests and decides 

whether the privilege applies. “To determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts 

must weigh the potential benefits of the disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the 

latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1034; see also Martinez v. 

City of Stockton, 132 F.R.D. 677 (E.D.Cal. 1990). Where otherwise discoverable information 

would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a protective privacy 

interest, a need may arise for the court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure 

should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

Discussion

In the motion to compel, plaintiff requested the Internal Affairs findings regarding the 

March 4, 2013 incident involving defendants. (ECF No. 32.) In response, defendants invoked 

the official information privilege. (ECF No. 39.) 

On April 9, 2015, defendants filed the declaration of J. Macomber, Warden at California 

State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) in support of their invocation of the official information 

privilege regarding the Internal Affairs findings. (ECF No. 71.) Warden Macomber states that he 

has reviewed the Internal Affairs Investigation and Findings for defendants and believes that 

disclosure of these documents would violate governmental and privacy interests of defendants. 

(Id. at 2.) Warden Macomber states that these documents contain confidential and private 

personal information about prison employees, officers and inmates which may have been 

provided to investigators on a confidential basis. (Id.) Warden Macomber also states that he does 

not believe that a carefully crafted protective order would eliminate the risks of harm caused by 

disclosure of the information in the documents. (Id. at 3.) 

The undersigned finds that defendants, by way of the declaration of Warden Macomber, 

have made a sufficient showing that the documents sought by plaintiff regarding the Internal 

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 83 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Affairs findings are possibly protected by the official information privilege. Under these 

circumstances, the court will direct defendants to submit to the undersigned for in camera review 

the responsive documents. Defendant shall include a detailed log describing the documents and 

setting forth defendants’ argument for withholding the documents from plaintiff. The 

undersigned will then determine whether it is appropriate for defendants to produce the 

documents, whether in unredacted or redacted form, or subject to a protective order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The April 2, 2015 order to show cause is discharged;

2. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendants shall submit the documents 

responsive to plaintiff’s request for the Internal Affairs findings and the log described above. 

Dated: April 28, 2015

Thom66.inf

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 83 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 4