Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05021/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05021-1/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

)

RODNEY S. KOCH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

VICTOR A. AUSTIN, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-5021 AWI DLB P 

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

I. Background

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint, filed January

8, 2003, against defendants Austin, Traynham and Witcher.

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that on November 23, 2003, defendant Austin used

excessive force on him by discharging a “block gun” at him during a fight involving plaintiff and

another inmate. Plaintiff alleges that thereafter, defendant Austin falsified the reports regarding the

incident. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Traynham and Witcher failed to make accurate reports

concerning the use of force and/or ratified the inaccurate report. 

On January 31, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery of defendant Austin’s

personnel records regarding an ISU investigation into the issues of this case. Defendants filed an

opposition to the motion on February 15, 2005 and plaintiff filed a reply on March 4, 2005. On

Case 1:03-cv-05021-AWI-DLB Document 117 Filed 08/30/05 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

March 15, 2005, this Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing regarding the motion to

compel. 

In Defendant Austin’s supplemental brief, he requested that the Court conduct an in camera

review of the documents responsive to plaintiff’s request which have been included on a privilege

log. In response, plaintiff provided the Court with a list of the documents on the privilege log for 

which he sought production. Pursuant to the Court’s order, defendant Austin submitted the

following documents to the Court for in camera review on August 25, 2005:

1. October 22, 2003 Memorandum re: Results of Skelly Meeting (Privilege Log of

Victor A. Austin, Log #2 , Bates No. 000001);

2. October 27, 2003 Notice of Adverse Action (Privilege Log of Victor A. Austin, Log

#3, Bates Nos. 000003-000005);

3. August 20, 2003 Category I Investigation - Log #I-CCI-004-03 (Privilege Log of

Victor A. Austin, Log #4, Bates Nos. 000006 - 0000012);

4. January 29, 2003 Internal Affairs Investigation Request - Log #I-CCI-004-03

(Privilege Log of Victor A. Austin, Log #5, Bates Nos. 000013 - 000014);

5. August 20, 2003 Advisement of Rights - Administrative Inquiry (Privilege Log of

Victor A. Austin, Log #6, Bates No. 000015);

6. January 17, 2003 Memorandum re Recommendation for Investigation (Privilege Log

of Victor A. Austin, Log #9, Bates Nos. 000028); and

7. January 13, 2003 Memorandum re Recommendation for Investigation (Privilege Log

of Victor A. Austin, Log #10, Bates No. 000029 - 000030).

Defendant contends that documents are privileged pursuant to California Penal Code Section

832.7, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 501 and defendant’s right to privacy.

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

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

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

Case 1:03-cv-05021-AWI-DLB Document 117 Filed 08/30/05 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

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 (9th Cir. 1975). Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege

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 (9th Cir. 1975). 

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.

Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be

raised in response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District,

542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.1976) (balancing the invasion of minor's privacy rights against the

court's need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir.1992),

cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (denying discovery of names of

participants in a medical study due to privacy interests of the individual participants); Cook v.

Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-51 (E.D.Cal.1990) (balancing targeted individual's

right of privacy against public's need for discovery in employment discrimination case). 

III. Discussion

The Court has conducted an in camera review of the documents and finds that the

information in documents is relevant to plaintiff’s claims and therefore the balance of hardships tips

in plaintiff’s favor for a limited disclosure, subject to the conditions of this order and for use only in

this litigation. In order to avoid any prejudice to plaintiff, the Court will order defendant to produce

redacted versions of the documents to plaintiff. The Court will also grant plaintiff a limited period in

which to supplement his opposition to defendant Austin’s motion for summary judgment should he

Case 1:03-cv-05021-AWI-DLB Document 117 Filed 08/30/05 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

so desire. The Court notes, however, that it has reviewed the documents and the videotapes

submitted by defendants and finds the factual information contained in the documents is consistent

and supports defendant Austin’s version of the facts as set forth in his motion for summary

judgment.

IV. Order 

Defendant Austin is HEREBY ORDERED to produce the documents listed above to plaintiff

on or before September 2, 2005 subject to the following:

1. Defendant shall redact any and all personal information including but not limited to 

social security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, family information and

background information of defendants or any other CDC employees or inmates who

are not parties to this action; 

2. The documents shall be disclosed only to plaintiff representing himself in this action;

Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings as are

incidental to the preparation for the trial in this action; witnesses to whom the

documents may be disclosed during or in preparation for a deposition taken in this

matter or otherwise during the preparation for trial and trial, provided that the witness

may not leave any deposition with copies of any of the documents, and shall be

informed and agree to be bound by the terms of this order. 

3. Plaintiff shall not make copies of the confidential material except as necessary for

purposes of this litigation. 

4. The documents in plaintiff’s possession shall be destroyed or returned to the CDC

within 20 days of the time it is no longer needed for purposes of this litigation. 

5. Plaintiff shall file any supplemental briefing in opposition to defendant Austin’s

motion for summary judgment on or before September 23, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 30, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05021-AWI-DLB Document 117 Filed 08/30/05 Page 4 of 4