Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02519/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02519-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 The court has never received any reply from

plaintiff. One was due October 17, 2007. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE L. HART,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

J. CELAYA, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-2519 CW (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL IN PART

Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

filed March 22, 2007, a Joint Stipulation and Order to

Withdraw Certain Document Requests from Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel entered July 30, 2007 and defendants’ Court Ordered

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel,1 the court finds

no need for a hearing. In my Order dated September 21, 2007 I

specifically asked plaintiff to explain, among other things,

why a review of his medical file and central file could not

solve some of these discovery disputes. He did not file the

required explanation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

Case 4:06-cv-02519-CW Document 79 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

motion to compel further production is GRANTED and DENIED as

follows: 

1. GRANTED as to Request No. 1 to the extent that

defendants are ORDERED to produce by November 16, 2007 for in

camera review any complaints claiming that any defendant used

improper or excessive force from January 1, 2001 to January 1,

2006.

2. DENIED as to Requests No. 5, 10 and 11. Defendants’

responses appear adequate. 

3. With respect to Request No. 13, by November 16, 2007

defendants shall make available for plaintiff’s review his

medical file and his central file.

4. With respect to Request No. 14, the court interprets

the defendants’ response as asserting that they have produced

all the requested documents in connection with the summary

judgment motion. As so construed, the motion to compel is

DENIED as to this request. 

6. DENIED as to Request No. 15 which is overbroad.

7. With respect to Requests No. 2, 3, 6 and 7,

defendants have properly invoked the official information

privilege. See Young v. Hernandez, No. 05-CV-2375 W(CAB), 2007

WL 935594, at *2 (S.D. Cal. March 26, 2007)(citing Kelly v.

City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (To

assert an official information privilege, the Department must

file an objection that specifically states the harm that could

result from releasing the requested materials, accompanied by

a declaration from a responsible official with personal

knowledge of the principal matters to be attested to in the

Case 4:06-cv-02519-CW Document 79 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

affidavit.)) Once the threshold requirement has been met, the

court will order an in camera review of the material and

balance each party’s interests, moderately pre-weighted in

favor of disclosure. Id. In performing this balancing test,

courts have found that a tightly drawn protective order

limiting document access to the litigant’s attorneys or

experts can permit the court to compel production of the

documents without jeopardizing law enforcement efforts or

revealing the documents to the public. See Kelly, 114 F.R.D.

at 666. Here, however, defendants are aptly concerned that a

protective order would be wholly inadequate. (Decl. of Lt.

William Muniz in Supp. of Defs.’ Resp. To Pl.’s Req. For

Produc. Of Docs. of 3/17/07, at 3). Therefore, as to these

Requests, defendants shall make the following documents

available by November 16, 2007 for in camera review:

Operational Procedures 8 and 14, Use of Force Book, Resource

Supplement Number 8, Use of Force Critique for incident number

SVP-FC7-05-03-0136, Modification Order for inmate appeal log

number SVSP-D-05-01465 with corresponding memorandum, and the

Confidential Supplement to Appeal log number SVSP-D-05-01465.

I will evaluate the documents and issue a further order.

Dated: November 1, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\HART\MOTION TO COMPEL RULING.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-02519-CW Document 79 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 3