Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05806/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05806-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

GARY RONNELL PERKINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

D.G. STOCKMAN, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-5806 OWW DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

TO COMPEL 

[DOCS 27, 37] 

Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint and paid the filing fee in full for initiating this

action. Pending before the Court are two motions to compel discovery filed by plaintiff on August 2,

2005 and September 7, 2005. Defendants filed oppositions to the motions on August 17, 2005 and

September 26, 2005.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that defendants McEnroe and Montgomery falsely accused him of being an

active participant in a conspiracy to assault a correctional officer. Plaintiff alleges the false,

unfounded and unwarranted accusations led to CDC 114-D Lock Up Orders dated July 1, 2003 and

August 19, 2003 which resulted in plaintiff’s retention in administrative segregation for a 92-day

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 43 Filed 11/15/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

period. Plaintiff alleges defendant Stockman, as chairman of the Institution Classification

Committee, retained plaintiff in administrative segregation despite the absence of disciplinary

reasons or a threat to the security of the institution. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Halberg and

Hense were also involved and responsible for his retention in administrative segregation. Plaintiff

alleges defendants’ actions were taken in retaliation for plaintiff’s civil complaint against prison

officials in Perkins v. Terhune CV 99-20440JW (PR). Plaintiff also alleges that defendants falsely

identified him as a member of the Raymond Avenue Crips and thereby recommended plaintiff’s

retention in administrative segregation and transfer to another institution. Plaintiff’s motions deal

with defendants’ responses to requests for production of documents and interrogatories in which

plaintiff requests documents and information used by defendants in placing plaintiff in

administrative segregation on July 1, 2003. Plaintiff argues that he needs to examine and copy the

documents in order to prove that defendants did not received information which identified him as a

co-conspirator to assault the correctional staff as alleged in the CDC 114 D dated July 1, 2003. 

Defendants argue that the issue is moot because it has already been established that following

the investigation conducted by prison personnel, no information surfaced connecting plaintiff to the

conspiracy. Defendants argue this is clearly noted in an August 12, 2003 CDC 128-B chrono which

is part of plaintiff’s C-file and which is already in plaintiff’s possession as he refers to it in his

declaration. Defendants argue there is no issue whether there are any documents that identify

plaintiff as a co-conspirator and therefore there is no need to compel additional discovery from

defendants so plaintiff can “prove” that he was not identified as a co-conspirator.

Defendants have also asserted the official information privilege and identified the protected

documents on a privilege log served with their discovery responses. Defendants represent that the

requested documents consist of investigations performed within the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation and contain information relating to prison gang activity and related

investigations and lists of individuals which may be averse to plaintiff, or vice versa. Defendants

state that disclosure of the document would severely endanger the safety of numerous inmates and

civilians as the documents identify inmates who provided confidential information to the

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 43 Filed 11/15/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Department. Defendants argue that the identity of these inmates cannot be protected by simply

redacting their names because the description of events and information, and in some cases the dates,

could reveal the identity of the informants. If the Court is inclined to grant plaintiff’s motion,

defendants request an in camera hearing prior to disclosure. Plaintiff does not object to an in

camera review. See Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel at 3:16-28. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any

books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and

location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter . . . . 

The information sought need not be admissible at trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. 

In federal question cases, privileges asserted in response to discovery requests are

determined under federal law, not the law of the forum state. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United States v.

Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989); Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of

California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9 Cir. 1975). Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege th

for official information, also known as the governmental privilege, or state secret privilege. Kerr v.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9 Cir. 1975). th

The application of the official information privilege is “contingent upon the competing interests of

the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure especially where protective measures are taken.” Id. 

The information sought by plaintiff related to plaintiff’s placement in administrative

segregation on July 1, 2003 appears to be relevant to plaintiff’s claims of retaliation. However, the

Court is mindful of the sensitive nature of the information and the potential consequences of

disclosure. The Court will therefore conduct an in camera review of the documents identified on

defendants’ privilege log prior to ordering disclosure. 

Based on the foregoing, defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to produce the documents

identified on their privilege log for in camera review. Defendants shall submit the documents under

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 43 Filed 11/15/05 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

seal with the Court within ten (10) days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 43 Filed 11/15/05 Page 4 of 4