Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02488/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02488-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Estate of MOHAMMAD REZA

ABDOLLAHI, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-02-2488 FCD JFM PS

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

Estate of JAKE SUMMERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

 /

JULIEN PROVENCHER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

 /

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 62 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Estate of JOSE ELIAZAR ARAMBULA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Judith Johnson to answer deposition

questions came on regularly for hearing April 7, 2005. Stewart Katz and Elizabeth Dankof

appeared for plaintiffs. Robert F. Tyler appeared for defendants Judith Johnson, R.N., Cheryl

Paizis, D.O., and Henry Ishibashi. James Michael Davis appeared for the County of Sacramento. 

After hearing from counsel, it became clear that the actual discovery dispute between the parties

was whether certain documents maintained by defendants were protected from discovery by the

assertion of a self-critical privilege, based on California Evidence Code Section 1157, or the

deliberate process privilege. Accordingly, the court ordered the parties to submit further briefing,

and reset the matter for hearing on Friday, April 22, 2005. At the April 22 hearing counsel

appeared as noted above. At the conclusion of the hearing the court directed defense counsel to

submit the disputed documents for in camera review, and the motion was taken under

submission. 

Upon review of the arguments of counsel and the in camera documents and good

cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

A federal court is not bound to recognize state privileges in federal question cases.

Garrett v. City & County of San Francisco, 818 F2d 1515, 1519, n. 6 (9th Cir. 1987) (personnel

files discoverable in federal civil rights action despite claims of privilege under state law). 

However, federal courts will usually attempt to accommodate the policies reflected in state law. 

Courts frequently issue a protective order restricting use and dissemination of the information

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 62 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

ordered to be disclosed. See Leon v. County of San Diego, 202 F.R.D. 631, 635 (S.D. Cal.

2001)(federal courts should attempt to accommodate state privilege in federal question cases

unless doing so would impair assertion of federal right).

The Supreme Court has cautioned that an evidentiary privilege should not be

recognized or applied unless it "promotes sufficiently important interests to outweigh the need

for probative evidence." Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (citing Trammel v. United States,

445 U.S. 40, 51 (1980)). This provides federal courts "with the flexibility to develop rules of

privilege on a case-by-case basis." Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47, 100 S.Ct. 906 (citation omitted).

The self-critical analysis privilege has been recognized only sporadically and only

at the district court level: “The Supreme Court and circuit courts have neither definitively denied

the existence of such a privilege, nor accepted it and defined its scope.” Dowling v. American

Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423, 425 n.1 (9th Cir. 1992); Morgan v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 182

F.R.D. 261, 264 (N.D. Ill. 1998). The court in Dowling stated: 

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any

matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter

involved in the pending action." Rule 501 of the Federal

Rules of Evidence states that in cases in which federal law

governs, privileges "shall be governed by the principles of the

common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the

United States in the light of reason and experience." Rule 501

reflects Congress's intent to allow courts "flexibility to

develop rules of privilege on a case by case basis." University

of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 189 . . . (1990). The Supreme

Court has recently stated that it is "disinclined to exercise this

authority expansively." Id. The Court has reiterated its long

standing view that the policy favoring open discovery requires

that privileges must be "strictly construed." Id.

Dowling, 971 F.2d at 425.

The reasoning of Leon v. County of San Diego , 202 F.R.D. 231 (S.D. Cal. 2001)

is persuasive herein. This court finds that no self-critical analysis privilege under federal

common law protects the documents in question. Therefore, discovery of the documents should

be allowed.

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 62 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 5
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

1

 The case law addressing this privilege has generally been in the context of actions

brought under the Freedom of Information Act, (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The rationale of the

FOIA cases, however, is equally applicable where the government asserts the privilege to protect

documents from disclosure during civil discovery. 

4

Defendants also claim the QI documents submitted in camera are protected from

disclosure by the deliberative process privilege.1 The purpose of the deliberative process

privilege “is to prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions” by ensuring that the “frank

discussion of legal or policy matters” in writing, within the agency, is not inhibited by public

disclosure. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 150-51 (1975). To come within the

ambit of the deliberative process privilege, a document must be both “predecisional” and

“deliberative.” National Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Service, 861 F.2d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.

1988. A “predecisional” document is one “prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker

in arriving at his decision.” Assembly of the State of California v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 968

F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). A predecisional document is a part of the

“deliberative process” if “the disclosure of [the] materials would expose an agency’s

decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and

thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.” Id. 

The agency asserting the privilege bears the burden of justifying it. EPA v. Mink,

410 U.S. 73, 93 (1973). The burden may be met through detailed affidavits which establish in a

nonconclusory and logical fashion the decision-making deliberative process to which the

documents pertain and the role played by the document. Wiener v. F.B.I., 943 F.2d 972 (9th Cir.

1991); Bay Area Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control v. Department of State, 818

F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Cal. 1992). 

Upon careful review of the QI documents, the court concludes that the QI

documents are also not protected by the deliberative process privilege. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 62 Filed 04/26/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

1. The QI documents submitted for review in camera shall be produced to

plaintiffs’ counsel for inspection and copying within ten days from the date of this order. 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Judith Johnson to answer deposition questions is

denied.

3. The documents produced pursuant to this order shall be used by plaintiffs’

counsel solely in connection with this litigation.

DATED: April 25, 2005.

/001; abdollahi.oah

Case 2:02-cv-02488-FCD-JFM Document 62 Filed 04/26/05 Page 5 of 5