Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03763-19/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

1

 Defendants brought this matter before the Court through a letter brief dated February 14, 2006

[Docket No. 123]. Plaintiff responded in a February 21, 2006 letter [Docket No. 137].

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 DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS OF

SPECIAL AGENTS MIDDLEBROOKS

AND EDWARDS

Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to quash subpoenas of Special Agents Azell

Middlebrooks and Paul Edwards.1 Plaintiff has objected to quashing these subpoenas, arguing that the

depositions should be allowed pursuant to the protective order in this case. For the following reasons,

the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to quash.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Gregory Tillis filed this action against defendants Anthony Lamarque, et al., on August

26, 2004, in the Eastern District of California. On September 8, 2004, this case was transferred to this

Court. This matter is currently in the discovery phase. On November 8, 2005, the Court issued a

protective order. On that same day, the parties stipulated to have the protective order “govern the rights

and obligations . . . with respect to Documents and Protected information produced or received in the

course of this action.” See November 8, 2005, Addendum One to Protective Order.

Plaintiff has subpoenaed Special Agents Middlebrooks and Edwards for deposition. Defendants

now seek to quash these deposition subpoenas.

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 176 Filed 04/20/06 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 2

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that the subpoenas issued to Middlebrooks and Edwards should be quashed

because: (1) most of the information sought is privileged; (2) the information sought could violate

federally protected privacy rights of peace officers; (3) the information that plaintiff seeks can be

obtained in another manner; (4) the unauthorized release of information from these depositions would

greatly undermine the effectiveness of internal affairs investigations of the CDCR; and (5) the

depositions are barred by the official information privilege. In the alternative, if the subpoenas are

allowed, defendants move to modify the subpoena so that the depositions are classified as “Confidential:

Outside Attorneys’ and Experts’ Eyes Only” and that the deposition subject matter be limited to only

the investigation of the August 14, 2003, incident.

Defendants’ brief generally reiterates the same arguments that were previously rejected by the

Court in its October 19, 2005, Order granting in part plaintiff’s motion to compel (“Oct. 19 Order”).

As defendants have added nothing new, their motion is DENIED.

1. Privileged Information in Deposition Testimony

Defendants renew their argument from their August 19, 2005, letter brief that much of the

information that may be revealed in the special agents’ depositions is privileged under California Penal

Code § 832.7. Compare Defs.’ Br. at 2, with Aug. 19 Brief at 4; see CAL. PEN CODE § 832.7. The Court

has already rejected this argument in its previous order. Oct. 19 Order at 3, n.2. In addition, the October

19 Order clearly defines what part of personnel records are discoverable. As such, the Court again

rejects defendants’ argument.

2. Federally Protected Privacy Rights of Peace Officers

Next, defendants argue that the privacy rights of correctional officers will be violated because

the depositions are likely to elicit information regarding correctional officers’ personnel file. This

argument adds nothing new to defendants’ argument in their August 19 Brief in which they pose the

same argument and cite the same case. Compare Defs.’ Br. at 3, with Aug. 19 Brief at 4. Accordingly,

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 176 Filed 04/20/06 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

the Court rejects this argument as it did in the October 19 Order.

3. Alternate Access to Information

Defendants argue that plaintiff should be precluded from taking these depositions because all

the pertinent information that can be gathered in depositions is contained in investigative reports

available to the plaintiff. Plaintiff correctly argues that the depositions are needed because the

investigative reports do not address discrepancies of different witnesses’ account of what happened, how

this investigation was performed, and the authenticity of the investigative reports. Accordingly, the

Court rejects defendants’ argument.

4. Undermining the Effectiveness of Internal Affairs Investigations

Defendants argue that these depositions should not be allowed because they may disclose

information that “could greatly impede Internal Affairs’ ability to effectively investigate staff

misconduct.” Defs.’ Br. at 3. However, defendants’ argument ignores the fact that the protective order,

stipulated to by defendants, already addresses this concern by allowing this type of information to be

classified as confidential. Protective Order at ¶ 4. Accordingly, the Court rejects this argument.

5. Official Information Privilege

Lastly, defendants argue that the official information privilege disallows the depositions because

disclosure of internal affairs investigations would be extremely harmful. Before the Court can consider

whether the official information privilege applies, the defendant must file a declaration or affidavit

setting forth:

(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 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 the disclosure were made.

Kelly v. San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987). Defendants submit a declaration by Paul

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 176 Filed 04/20/06 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 4

Edwards to address this threshold concern. However, this declaration is mostly conclusory and is filled

with general assertions. Specifically, the declaration fails to address in a specific manner how disclosure

under the current protective order would create any risk, much less substantial risk, to governmental or

privacy interests. Instead, it speaks only to consequences of disclosure to the general public. In

addition, the declaration only describes what types of harm may occur and does not predict the amount

of harm. The “general assertion that . . . [the] internal investigatory system would be harmed by

disclosure of the [deposition testimony] 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). As plaintiff

failed to satisfy the threshold declaration requirement, the Court rejects defendants’ official information

privilege argument.

6. Modifications to the Subpoena

Defendants request that if the depositions are allowed to proceed, they should be classified as

“Confidential: Outside Attorneys’ and Experts’ Eyes Only” and that the deposition subject matter be

limited to the investigation of the August 14, 2003, incident. The Court GRANTS defendants’ request

that depositions be initially designated as “Confidential: Outside Attorneys’ and Experts’ Eyes Only”

as stipulated in the Protective Order at paragraph 11(A)(i). However, the Court DENIES defendants’

request that the deposition subject matter be limited to the investigation of the August 14, 2003,

incident.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’

motion to quash subpoenas of Special Agents Middlebrooks and Edwards (Docket No. 123).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 176 Filed 04/20/06 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

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03763-SI Document 176 Filed 04/20/06 Page 5 of 5