Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02796/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02796-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

ARLIE HALCOMB,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2796 MCE DAD

ORDER

On June 5, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff’s motion

to compel. Attorneys Mark Merin and Paul Masuhara appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and 

Senior Deputy City Attorney Andrea Velazquez appeared on behalf of the defendants. After 

hearing argument from the parties, the court took the motion under submission. On June 10, 

2015, the undersigned issued an order directing the parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing 

whether the discovery at issue should be produced only subject to a protective order. (Dkt. No. 

24.) The parties filed their briefs on June 17, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 25 & 26.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks the production of un-redacted copies of Sacramento 

Police Department General Order 550.03, General Order 560.02 and General Order 580.02,

(“General Orders”), redacted copies of which were previously produced by defendants to 

plaintiff. Defendants assert that the information that they have redacted from the General Orders 

as produced is protected by the official information privilege. Counsel for plaintiff argues that 

Case 2:14-cv-02796-MCE-DB Document 28 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 5
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

defendants’ assertion of the privilege is inadequately supported and that the un-redacted versions 

of the General Orders should be produced to plaintiff without a protective order.

A party seeking to invoke the official information privilege “must submit an affidavit 

from an agency official which includes the following: (1) an affirmation that the agency 

generated or collected the material in issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) statement 

that the official has personally reviewed the material; (3) specific identification of the 

governmental or privacy interests 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 

still create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy interests; and finally, 

(5) a projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure 

were made.” Sanchez v. City of San Jose, 250 F.R.D. 468, 470 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Kelly v. 

City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987)).

Here, in asserting that the redacted information is protected by the official information 

privilege defendants have submitted the declaration of Sacramento Police Department Captain 

James Beezley. (JS (Dkt. No. 21-1) at 126-28.) As suggested by the undersigned at the June 5, 

2015 hearing on the motion, Captain Beezley’s declaration does not appear to at all address how 

disclosure of the redacted information subject to a carefully crafted protective order would still 

create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy interests.

1

 See Chism v. 

County of San Bernardino, 159 F.R.D. 531, 535 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (“the opposing party’s 

declaration is supposed to describe how disclosure, even if made subject to a protective order, 

would create a substantial risk of harm, as well as a projection of how much harm would be done 

by disclosure”); Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 672 (“In order to overcome the moderately weighted 

presumption in favor of disclosure the party claiming the official information privilege must, at 

least, specifically describe how disclosure under a carefully tailored protective order would 

substantially harm a significant governmental interest and state how much harm would be done to 

 

1

In their brief addressing whether the documents should be produced only subject to a protective 

order, defendants nonetheless continue to assert, without support, that they “met the threshold 

burden necessary to invoke the protections of the official information privilege.” (Defs.’ Brief 

(Dkt. No. 25) at 3.) 

Case 2:14-cv-02796-MCE-DB Document 28 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 5
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

those threatened interests by disclosure in this particular case.”). Accordingly, the undersigned 

finds that defendants have failed to meet their initial burden in invoking the privilege. “If the 

court concludes that a defendant’s submissions are not sufficient to meet the threshold burden, it 

will order disclosure of the documents in issue.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 

(N.D. Cal. 1995). See also Zackery v. Stockton Police Dep’t, No. CIV S-05-2315 MCE DAD P, 

2007 WL 1655634, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2007).

2

In their post-hearing June 17, 2015 brief, defendants argue that they have established good 

cause for a protective order with respect to the production of unredacted General Orders because 

Captain Beezley’s declaration states that the department’s General Orders “are held in confidence 

by the Department and not publicly disseminated.” (Defs.’ Brief (Dkt. No. 25.) at 4.) Plaintiff’s 

attorney, Mark Merin, has submitted a declaration stating that the Sacramento Police Department, 

“previously made its General Order publicly-available online.” (Merin Decl. (Dkt. No. 26-1) at 

1.) Attorney Merin declares that he “was able to obtain what appears to be previous versions of 

two of the three General Orders in dispute here,” General Order 550.03 and General Order 

580.02, which were obtained when those orders “were publicly-available online,” and “the 

language of these General Orders appears to be largely consistent with the language of the 

redacted General Orders in dispute here.” (Id.) At the conclusion of the hearing on the pending 

motion, defense counsel submitted the unredacted General Orders for the court’s in camera

review. The court has now compared the redacted General Orders in dispute here with the prior 

General Orders obtained online by plaintiff’s attorney and concurs in attorney Merin’s 

characterization. (Compare Dkt. No. 21-1 at 80-82 with Dkt. No. 26-1 at 4-6 and Dkt. No. 21-1 

at 84-85 with Dkt. No. 26-1 at 8.) Therefore, it does not appear that defendants have established 

that they have maintained the confidentiality of all of the information which they seek to produce 

only subject to a protective order.

 

2

The undersigned would note that at the June 5, 2015 hearing on the pending motion, defendants 

essentially conceded that a carefully crafted protective order would sufficiently protect 

defendants’ privacy interests. In this regard, defendants stated that they have been willing to 

provide plaintiff with un-redacted copies of the General Orders pursuant to a stipulated protective 

order for some time. 

Case 2:14-cv-02796-MCE-DB Document 28 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendants also argue that public disclosure of the redacted portions of the General 

Orders at issue3 would “be detrimental to the efforts of the Police Department and to the safety of 

its officers,” because the “redacted sections of the subject General Orders contain information 

regarding police procedures, and specifically regarding when, where, how and who must respond 

to specific types of situations.” (Defs. Brief (Dkt. No. 25) at 4.) They assert the City protects that 

information from public disclosure because its police officers “may face an ambush-style attack if 

their movements and whereabouts were commonly known and anticipated.” (Id.) Having 

reviewed the un-redacted General Orders in camera, however, the undersigned finds no support 

for defendants’ characterization of the redacted information. The portions of the General Orders 

which defendants have redacted do not, in any way, concern specific tactical information that if 

disclosed would jeopardize officer safety, as asserted in conclusory fashion in defendants’

supporting declaration. Nor do the redactions concern information that would inform anyone of 

law enforcement movements and whereabouts, as argued in defendants’ brief. Rather, the 

redacted portions of the General Orders merely concern basic, straight forward practices and 

procedures. The redacted excerpts simply spell out such things as the Department’s general 

policies regarding the use of force and the responsibilities of supervisors in investigating incidents 

involving the use of force by officers. In no way would disclosure of the redacted information 

make any officer’s movements commonly known or anticipated. 

Finally, defendants argue that, “[c]ourts have endorsed the use of a protective order to 

protect the privacy interests of the public entity Defendant[.]” (Defs.’ Brief (Dkt. No. 25) at 3.) 

Specifically, defendants argue that in discuss Kelly v. City of San Jose the court recognized that a 

police department’s interest in not permitting the general public to have access to its procedure 

and training policies “may be weighty.” (Id.)

Of course, a police department may have a weighty interest in prohibiting the public 

disclosure of training policies and procedures. Equally true is the fact that a carefully crafted

protective order may protect that interest in some cases. Most importantly for purposes of 

 

3 As noted above, defendants have already produced to plaintiff redacted portions of the General 

Orders at issue without a stipulated protective order. 

Case 2:14-cv-02796-MCE-DB Document 28 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 5
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

resolving the pending motion, however, is recognition of the fact that the court in Kelly was not 

reviewing the specific redacted General Orders at issue here. Certainly the mere fact that the 

discovery at issue concerns police department policies and the defendants have requested a 

protective order does not relieve defendants of their burden of establishing good cause for 

imposition of a protective order. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular 

document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective 

order is granted.”); Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (“For good cause to exist, the party seeking 

protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective 

order is granted.”); Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 

1992) (“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, 

do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”). 

Here, for the reasons stated above, the undersigned finds that defendants have failed to 

show that good cause exists to order the un-redacted General Orders produced subject to a 

establish good cause for requiring production only pursuant to a protective order. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s May 14, 2015 motion to compel (Dkt. No. 18) is granted and defendants shall produce 

to plaintiff the General Orders in question without redaction within fourteen days of the date of 

this order.

4

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.civil\halcomb2796.oah2.060515

 

4

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel also sought leave of court to file a declaration establishing the

reasonable fees and costs incurred in support of an award of sanctions in connection with the 

motion. The undersigned does not find that the imposition of sanctions is warranted in this 

instance. 

Case 2:14-cv-02796-MCE-DB Document 28 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 5