Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05643/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05643-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL D. COLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOE 1 THRU 2 OFFICERS OF THE CITY

OF EMERYVILLE POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-03-5643 EMC

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ LETTER

OF JUNE 6, 2005

Defendants filed a letter on June 6, 2005, asking the Court to review their objections to

certain document requests propounded by Plaintiff Paul D. Cole, namely Requests Nos. 2-4. 

Request No. 2 asks for all documents relating to Mr. Cole; Request No. 3 asks for all documents

relating to Defendant Edward Mayorga’s job performance; and Request No. 4 asks for all documents

relating to Defendant Robert Alton’s job performance. Defendants object to the requests on the basis

of California Penal Code § 832.7 and the right to privacy under the California Constitution as well as

on the basis of relevance.

The Court agrees that relevance is a problem -- or rather that, as framed, the document

requests are overbroad. For example, given the allegations in Mr. Cole’s amended complaint,

documents related to any alleged unreasonable search or seizure by the individual officers or

documents related to any alleged racial discrimination by the individual officers would be relevant. 

In addition, documents that directly reflect upon the individual officers’ credibility would be relevant

(e.g., alleged instances of untruthfulness). However, documents related to the individual officers’

Case 3:03-cv-05643-EMC Document 48 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

job performance generally reaches too broadly. See Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D.

Cal. 1992) (concluding that the documents related to the officer-defendants’ misuse of firearms or

equipment, racism, or prejudice need not be produced because the plaintiffs’ complaint did not allege

any claims regarding such).

That being said, Defendants objections on the basis of California Penal Code § 832.7 and the

right to privacy under the California Constitution are not well taken. Mr. Cole pleads in his amended

complaint both federal claims (based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983) and state claims, all of which are

predicated on the same incident. Accordingly, federal law on privilege applies, not state. See

Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 459 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (stating that, “in federal

question cases where pendent state claims are raised the federal common law of privileges should

govern all claims of privilege raised in the litigation”); see also 6-26 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. §

26.47[4] (“[I]n federal question cases in which state law claims are also raised, any asserted

privileges relating to evidence relevant to both state and federal claims are governed by federal

common law.”).

To the extent that state law on privilege can be considered if not inconsistent with federal

law, see Breed v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist., 542 F.2d 1114, 1115 (9th Cir. 1976)

(“The scope of an evidentiary privilege in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action is a question of

federal law. State law may provide a useful referent, but it is not controlling.”), the Court finds that

California Penal Code § 832.7 is not consistent with federal law. California Penal Code § 832.7

provides that “[p]eace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any

state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are

confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery

pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code.” Cal. Pen. Code § 832.7(a); see also id. §

832.7(f) (“Nothing in this section shall affect the discovery or disclosure of information contained in

a peace or custodial officer's personnel file pursuant to Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.”). 

However, as pointed out by the Court in Miller, California Evidence Code § 1043 is more restrictive

than the Federal Rules on discovery. See Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 298-99; see also Soto v. City of

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 609 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (“The federal policy on discovery is a liberal

Case 3:03-cv-05643-EMC Document 48 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

standard, and applying California privilege law, such as California Evidence Code § 1043 and Penal

Code § 832.5 would severely limit Plaintiff from gaining access to the police files in dispute.”). 

As for the right to privacy under the California Constitution, the Court does “give ‘some

weight’” to this right. Id. at 616 (“In the context of the disclosure of police files, courts have

recognized that privacy rights are not inconsequential. Federal courts should give ‘some weight’ to

privacy rights that are protected by state constitutions or statutes.”). However, this privacy interest

“must be balanced against the great weight afforded to federal law in civil rights cases against police

departments. ‘Through constitutional amendment and national legislation the people have made it

clear that the policies that inform federal civil rights laws are profoundly important.’” Id. As in

Soto, Mr. Cole’s

need for the requested personnel files is great. This Court recognizes

that the information contained in police personnel files is unlikely to

be available from any other source than Defendants’ files. . . . [I]n civil

rights cases against police departments, plaintiffs cannot usually obtain

information of comparable quality from any other source. The court in

Kelly [v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987),] has

stressed the strong public interest in uncovering civil rights violations

of the type at issue in this case. These interests would be substantially

harmed if access to the relevant portions of the requested personnel

files is denied.

Id. at 617.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:03-cv-05643-EMC Document 48 Filed 06/07/05 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendants’ objections on the basis of California Penal Code §

832.7 and the right to privacy under the California Constitution. However, to protect the privacy

interests of the individual officers, documents produced shall be subject to the stipulated protective

order submitted by the parties which the Court shall sign today or shortly thereafter. In addition,

because the document requests as currently framed are overbroad, the Court orders the parties to

meet and confer to narrow the scope of the requests, taking into account the guidance provided above

by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2005

 /s/ 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05643-EMC Document 48 Filed 06/07/05 Page 4 of 4