Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-37/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-MJS (PC)

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF 

CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS

SEVEN (7) DAY DEADLINE FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Walker, Prokop, Davis, 

Spralding, and Fellows, and stems from a 2011 Classification Hearing during which 

Defendants assigned Plaintiff to the same unit as his enemy, inmate Robert Siordia.

I. Procedural Background

On September 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to seven 

requests for the production of documents (“RPDs”) as well as ten Interrogatories directed 

to Defendant Walker. (ECF No. 126.) On December 12, 2016, the Court granted in part 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 1 of 10
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

and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 142.) In response to Plaintiff’s 

RPD No. 1, which requested his “entire” prison record including those confidential 

documents that were reviewed in relation to Defendants’ placement decision, 

Defendants were directed to submit to the Court, for in camera review, any withheld 

portion of Plaintiff’s prison record file relied on by Defendants during the 2011 

Classification Committee hearing. 

The Court requested the files be submitted to the Court in both redacted and 

unredacted form, and directed Defendants to file and serve a privilege log detailing the 

nature of the documents withheld, as well as an affidavit signed by an individual with 

knowledge of the documents explaining his or her reasons for refusing to disclose the 

documents on privilege grounds.

On December 27, 2016, Defendants submitted to the Court for in camera review 

21 confidential documents contained within Plaintiff’s prison file that were likely reviewed 

by Defendants during the Classification Committee hearing. That same day, Defendants 

filed a privilege log (ECF No. 148) and the accompanying affidavit of Correctional 

Counselor II (“CCII”) D. Davis in support of the privilege log. (ECF No. 148-1.)

Defendants were also directed to submit, in response to RPD No. 8, documents 

relating to disciplinary actions or findings of misconduct against any Defendant for the 

acts alleged in this lawsuit. No such documents having been submitted, the presumption 

is that none exist. Defendants shall, within seven days of this Order, so confirm under 

oath.

The Court has reviewed the documents submitted and now addresses

Defendants’ assertion of privilege.

II. Legal Standard

The Supreme Court has long noted that privileges are disfavored. Jaffee v. 

Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9 (1996). “The party asserting an evidentiary privilege has the 

burden to demonstrate that the privilege applies to the information in question.” Tornay 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 2 of 10
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

v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988). Privileges are to be “strictly 

construed” because they “impede full and free discovery of the truth.” Eureka Fin. Corp. 

v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 136 F.R.D. 179, 183 (E.D. Cal. 1991). “If the privilege is 

worth protecting, a litigant must be prepared to expend some time to justify the assertion 

of the privilege.” Id.

In civil rights cases brought under section 1983, questions of privilege are 

resolved by federal law. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 

192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975). “State privilege doctrine, whether derived from statutes or court 

decisions, is not binding on federal courts in these kinds of cases.” Kelly v. City of San 

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 655–56 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

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

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr, 511 F.2d 

at 198. The discoverability of official documents should be determined under the 

“balancing approach that is moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.” Kelly, 114 

F.R.D. at 661. The party asserting the privilege must properly invoke the privilege by 

making a “substantial threshold showing.” Id. at 669. For each discovery request 

objected to, the party must file an objection and submit a declaration or affidavit from a 

responsible official with personal knowledge of the matters attested to by the official. Id. 

The affidavit or declaration must include (1) an affirmation that the agency has 

generated or collected the requested material and that it has maintained its 

confidentiality, (2) a statement that the material has been personally reviewed by the 

official, (3) a description of the governmental or privacy interests that would be 

threatened by disclosure of the material to the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, (4) a 

description of how disclosure under a protective order would create a substantial risk of 

harm to those interests, and (5) a projection of the harm to the threatened interest or 

interests if disclosure were made. Id. at 670. “The asserting party, as in any case where 

a privilege is claimed, must sufficiently identify the documents so as to afford the 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 3 of 10
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

requesting party an opportunity to challenge the assertion of privilege.” Miller v. 

Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 300 (9th Cir. 1992). 

III. Discussion

A. Documents Submitted for In Camera Review

Defendants’ privilege log contains 21 items. They are described in the privilege 

log as follows:

Ex. A: Dec. 12, 1991 128B Confidential Chrono regarding enemy concerns 

between Warner and another inmate;

Ex. B: Dec. 17, 1991 128 B Confidential Chrono listing confidential 

enemies of Warner;

Ex. C: April 22, 1993 Confidential Memorandum interview with an inmate 

regarding safety concerns involving Warner;

Ex. D: January 27, 1995 Confidential Memorandum interview with an 

inmate regarding safety concerns involving Warner;

Ex. E: May 25, 1995 Confidential Memorandum interview with an inmate 

regarding Warner;

Ex. F: July 12, 1995 Confidential Memorandum interview with an inmate 

regarding Warner;

Ex. G: August 14, 1995 Confidential Memorandum interview with an inmate 

regarding Warner;

Ex. H: August 28, 1995 Confidential memorandum regarding inmate 

Warner;

Ex. I: May 6, 1997 Confidential Memorandum interview with an inmate 

regarding safety concerns with Warner;

Ex. J: February 11, 1998 Confidential Memorandum interview with inmate 

Warner regarding his concerns for personal safety;

Ex. K: March 18, 1998 Confidential 128B Informational Chrono regarding 

enemies of Warner;

Ex. L: April 17, 1998 128B Confidential Informational Chrono regarding 

enemies of Warner;

Ex. M: July 22, 1998 Confidential Memorandum interview with Warner 

regarding enemy concerns;

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 4 of 10
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

Ex. N: July 22, 1998 Confidential Memorandum follow up interview with 

Warner regarding enemy concerns;

Ex. O: December 13, 2000 128 Confidential Chrono regarding enemy 

concerns for Warner;

Ex. P: October 23, 2003 Confidential Memorandum interview with an 

inmate regarding safety concerns with Warner;

Ex. Q: April 11, 2006 Confidential Memorandum interview with an inmate 

regarding safety concerns with Warner;

Ex. R: June 21, 2006 128 Confidential Chrono regarding a compatibility 

concern with Warner;

Ex. S: April 19, 2010 Confidential Memorandum Interview with Warner 

regarding safety concerns;

Ex. T: August 18, 2010 Confidential 128B informational chrono noting 

interview with Warner regarding enemy concerns; and

Ex. U: Plaintiff’s CDCR 812-C Notice of Critical Information Confidential 

Enemies: lists available from beginning of Warner's incarceration 

(for CDCR E-32637) through the date of the January 19, 2011 UCC 

hearing.

According to Defendants: These documents are classified as “Confidential

Material” pursuant to Cal Code. Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3321(a)(1) and (2) and 3370(d)(e).

(Decl. of D. Davis in Supp. of D.’s Privilege Log (ECF No. 148-1) ¶ 6.) If any of the 

information contained within were made known to an inmate it would endanger the 

safety of inmates and correctional staff and thereby jeopardizing institutional security.

(Id. ¶ 7.) Such documents may be released only pursuant to a court order or under the 

provisions set forth in Cal. Code Regs. tit 15, § 3370(e). (Id. ¶ 6.) A protective order 

would be insufficient to protect the confidentiality of the documents, since the threat of 

sanctions for disobeying a protective order would be insufficient to deter a prisoner from 

disseminating and profiting from confidential information. (Id. ¶ 10.)

B. Analysis 

The Court has reviewed each and every of the documents submitted forin camera

review and makes the following findings and order regarding their production:

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 5 of 10
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

6

1. Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, P, Q, and R

These exhibits document other inmates’ concerns about Plaintiff and reports by 

inmates the nature of which could expose them to Plaintiff’s enmity or retaliation. They 

include allegations, some dating back to 1998, by inmates that Plaintiff engaged in illegal 

activity or used violence or intimidation tactics against them or others. None of the

information therein relate to the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s expressed fear of Siordia. 

They have no potential relevance to the claims in this lawsuit and are unlikely to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court will not order their disclosure.

2. Exhibit U

Exhibit U contains Plaintiff’s confidential enemy list from the beginning of his 

incarceration through January 2011. According to Defendants, inmates can have both 

confidential and non-confidential enemy lists. (Davis Decl. ¶ 8.) Enemies are nonconfidential where both parties are aware of the enemy concern. Confidential enemy 

lists identify informants who have provided information about another inmate, thereby 

exposing themselves to possible harm if such disclosures were revealed. (Id.) Plaintiff’s 

confidential enemy lists may include the names of inmates who Plaintiff may not know 

regard him as an enemy. They do not include inmate Siordia’s name; he does not 

appear on Plaintiff’s confidential enemy list.

Again, the Court sees no potential relevancy of this information. The Court 

therefore will not order disclosure of Exhibit U. 

3. Exhibits J, K, L, and N

These documents relate to Plaintiff’s self-reported safety concerns on Facility C of 

High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) in 1998. Plaintiff named two inmates as potential 

threats. Those inmates are not affiliated with the instant case. While the reviewing officer 

found Plaintiff’s claims to be unsubstantiated, one inmate was relocated to a different 

housing unit because of Plaintiff’s stated concerns. 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 6 of 10
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

7

As these documents relate to enemy concerns that are more than eighteen years 

old and involve inmates with no relation to this case, the Court finds Exhibits J, K, and L 

are not relevant and will not order their disclosure. 

4. Exhibit M

This memorandum documents a July 22, 1998 interview with Plaintiff during which 

he discussed activity on Facility C of High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). Plaintiff 

identified inmates who were added to his confidential enemy list.

As this document relates to confidential information that is more than eighteen 

years old and involves inmates that are not affiliated with this lawsuit, the Court finds 

Exhibit M is not relevant and will not order its disclosure.

5. Exhibit O

This chrono relates to Plaintiff’s self-reported enemy concerns while at the 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in December 2000. As a result

of Plaintiff’s stated concerns, Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation pending 

possible referral as a “Sensitive Needs” prisoner. It was also recommended that an

inmate Plaintiff deemed an enemy be added to Plaintiff’s confidential enemy list.

As this document relates to enemy concerns that are more than sixteen years old 

and involve an inmate not affiliated with this lawsuit, the Court finds Exhibit O is not 

relevant and will not order its disclosure

6. Exhibit S

This document memorializes an April 16, 2010 interview with Plaintiff in which he 

discussed inmate concerns on Facility A at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”)

involving inmates of the “Northern D/O” gang prompting prison officials to recommend 

Plaintiff remain in administrative segregation pending transfer to another facility. 

Exhibits S relates to the circumstances that led to Plaintiff’s transfer from SVSP to 

PVSP, to wit, Plaintiff’s enemy concerns and could conceivably have some relevance to 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 7 of 10
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

8

Plaintiff’s claim here. Defendants will therefore be directed to disclose Exhibit S, subject 

to the protections listed below.

7. Exhibit T

This chrono memorializes an August 18, 2010 interview with Plaintiff at SVSP 

concerning Plaintiff’s self-expressed enemy concerns about the “2-5” gang who Plaintiff 

believed would assault him if given the chance. 

Defendants will therefore be required to disclose Exhibit T, subject to the 

protections listed below.

IV. Redactions and Protective Order

Defendants propose redacting from exhibits provided to Plaintiff the names, 

CDCR numbers, housing locations, nicknames, and gang affiliations of all inmates other 

than Plaintiff and all identifying information relating to officials who prepared or reviewed

the documents. 

Exhibits S and T will be provided to Plaintiff with the redactions proposed by 

Defendants. If, upon review of them, Plaintiff concludes they contain information that is 

relevant and in genuine need of corroboration, he may petition the Court for means of 

identifying and contacting individuals referred to therein upon a showing of good cause

to include an explanation of his basis for contending that such information would be 

helpful to his case and a statement of what he hopes to seek and secure from any such 

witness.

Subject to further order of the Court, Plaintiff may receive and use the information 

in Exhibits S and T, subject to the redactions above, in litigating this matter subject to 

and strictly in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 

(a) Plaintiff may not disclose the content to anyone other than his 

appointed or retained counsel, if any; said counsel’s administrative staff 

necessary to Plaintiff’s litigation of this matter; Court personnel and stenographic 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 8 of 10
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

9

reporters necessarily involved in these proceedings; any outside expert or 

consultant retained by Plaintiff’s counsel for purposes of this action.

(b) Plaintiff can review the confidential materials, but not copy them or

retain them or copies of them in his possession. The Litigation Coordinator at 

Plaintiff’s institution shall allow Plaintiff a reasonable time of up to 90 minutes to 

review the documents and make notes relating to them. If Plaintiff obtains 

counsel, his counsel will be permitted to retain copies of the documents and 

review and discuss them with Plaintiff without restriction.

(c) At the conclusion of the proceedings in this case, including any period 

for appeal or collateral review, or upon other termination of this litigation, Plaintiff 

and counsel for Plaintiff, if any, shall destroy all confidential materials and all 

copies of such material in their possession or return such materials to counsel for 

Defendants with sworn declarations stating they have done so.

(d) All confidential material in this matter shall be used solely in connection 

with the litigation of this matter, or any related appellate proceeding and collateral 

review, and not for any other purpose, including any other litigation or proceeding.

V. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within seven days of this order, Exhibits S and T of Defendants’ 

supplemental privilege log shall be produced to Plaintiff and his counsel, if he 

has any, subject to the Protective Order and with the redactions referred to 

above. The documents shall be kept in the care and custody of the 

institution’s Litigation Coordinator and Plaintiff’s counsel, if he has any. The 

Litigation Coordinator shall make arrangements for Plaintiff to have up to 90 

minutes to review the materials. Plaintiff may take notes, but no copy of the 

materials shall be provided to Plaintiff. 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 9 of 10
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

10

2. Within seven days of this order, Defendants shall confirm with the Court that 

no documents responsive to RPD No. 8 exist.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 157 Filed 01/18/17 Page 10 of 10