Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01338/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01338-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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 

BOBBY DARRELL JOHNSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SHASTA COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1338-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 On December 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel the California Department of 

Justice’s (“DOJ”), a non-party, compliance with a subpoena.1 ECF No. 116. The DOJ has filed a 

“Conditional Non-opposition” to the motion. ECF No. 122. For the reasons explained below, 

plaintiffs’ motion is granted. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(i) provides that “[a]t any time, on notice to 

the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is 

required for an order compelling production or inspection.” On November 20, 2015, plaintiffs 

served a subpoena on the DOJ’s Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis. Declaration of 

Kennedy Helm (ECF No. 117), Ex. A. The subpoena sought information concerning the criminal 

 1

 The court has determined that oral argument would not materially assist in resolution of 

the motion, and the hearing noticed for January 20, 2016 (ECF No. 116), is hereby vacated. E.D. 

Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 125 Filed 01/15/16 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

history of an individual identified as CR1-1p, a confidential informant that provided defendant 

Sutter County information on which it relied to obtain the search warrant that is the subject of the 

instant action. Id.; see ECF No. 110 at 2. 

On November 30, 2015, the DOJ served objections to the subpoena on the basis that the 

criminal records sought were confidential and not to be produced pursuant to California Penal 

Code section 11105(b). ECF No. 117, Ex. B. That section prohibits the DOJ from furnishing 

documents related to a person’s criminal history except as to authorized individuals. See Cal. 

Pen. Code § 11105. Subsection (b) of section 11105 concerns the persons and entities to whom 

disclosure are mandatory, while subsection (c) concerns the persons and entities to whom 

disclosure is discretionary. Specifically, section 11105(c)(7) provides that “[t]he Attorney 

General may furnish state summary criminal history information upon a showing of compelling 

need to any of the following . . . (7) The courts of the United States, other states or territories or 

possessions of the United States.” 

Plaintiff moves to compel the DOJ’s compliance with the subpoena, arguing that state law 

cannot provide a basis for resisting discovery in this federal action. ECF No. 116 at 4. Federal 

law applies to determinations of privilege in actions involving federal claims, even where there 

are pendant state law claims. See United States v. Blackmun, 72 F.3d 1418, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995); 

see also Pagano v. Oroville Hospital, 145 F.R.D. 683, 687 (E.D. Cal. 1993). Moreover, “under 

principles of federalism, state legislatures are not free to legislate what a federal court may order 

produced in the way of documentation . . . .” Doubleday v. Ruh, 149 F.R.D. 601, 612 (E.D. Cal. 

1993) (holding that section 11101, et seq. did not bar plaintiff from information sought, and even 

if it did, plaintiff had demonstrated a compelling need for the prosecutorial files for the purposes 

of her § 1983 claims). 

This instant action involves federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. ECF No. 23. Thus, federal law, not state law, 

applies to this action and California Penal Code section 11105 does not provide a basis for the 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 125 Filed 01/15/16 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

DOJ’s refusal to produce the requested documents.2 Accordingly, the DOJ must comply with the 

subpoena. 

The DOJ appears to acknowledge as much with its conditional non-opposition to 

plaintiffs’ motion. ECF No. 122. In its pleading, the DOJ states that it is statutorily precluded 

from providing the information requested in the subpoena, but that such information would be 

provided pursuant to a court order. Id. at 3. The DOJ requests, however, that any documents 

provided be subject to a protective order. Id. Plaintiffs agree that any produced documents 

should remain confidential and requests that any documents produced be subject to the protective 

order already in place in this action. ECF No. 124 at 2; see ECF No. 64. Thus, the production 

ordered here shall be pursuant to and governed by that protective order. 

The DOJ states that generally the identity of confidential informants is privileged and not 

subject to disclosure. ECF No. 122 at 3 n.1 (citing Cal. Evid. Code § 1041). The DOJ therefore 

requests that the court clarify whether the confidential informant’s name be redacted or whether 

the documents should be marked “CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Id. As 

indicated above, California law does not govern the instant dispute. While it may be possible to 

establish a basis for redaction under federal law, the DOJ has failed to show any basis for 

redacting the confidential informant’s name. The protective order in place in this action provides 

sufficient protection to the confidential informant’s identity. See ECF No. 64. Accordingly, the 

production of documents will be subject to the protective order entered in this case. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The January 20, 2016 hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to compel is vacated; 

///// 

 2

 Even if Penal Code section 11105 applied, production would still be appropriate here. 

The instant dispute concerns whether an executed search warrant was supported by probable 

cause. ECF No. 23 at 7-8. Plaintiff alleges that the probable cause for issuing the search warrant 

was based on statements made by the confidential informant, and that the defendants should have 

known that the confidential informant was unreliable. Id. at 8. The confidential informant’s 

criminal history may prove highly probative to whether there was a basis for finding him or her 

not credible, and therefore there is a compelling reason for producing the documents under 

California Penal Code § 11105(c)(7). 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 125 Filed 01/15/16 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

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the DOJ’s compliance with a subpoena (ECF No. 116) is 

granted. 

3. Within seven (7) days of the date of this order, the DOJ shall produce documents 

responsive to the November 13, 2015 subpoena served by plaintiffs. All documents produced 

will be subject to the protective order entered in this action (ECF No. 64) and shall be designated 

“Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 

DATED: January 15, 2016. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 125 Filed 01/15/16 Page 4 of 4