Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

JOHN TENNISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0574 CW (EMC)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER OF

AUGUST 26, 2005

(Docket No. 361)

On August 26, 2005, the parties filed a joint letter with the Court raising two discovery

disputes between Plaintiff John Tennison and Defendant the City and County of San Francisco

(“City”). The first dispute concerns files of the District Attorney, more specifically, whether such

files are within the control of the City or the State. The second dispute concern police chronological

logs from other homicide investigations, more specifically, what protective order terms should

govern such logs.

I. DISCUSSION

A. District Attorney Files

To support his § 1983 claim against the City, Mr. Tennison seeks to determine “whether the

City had a custom or policy of offering or paying money to witnesses or potential witnesses from the

Secret Witness Program but concealing those offers or payments from the District Attorney, thereby

preventing the DA from complying with his duties to turn over impeachment evidence to

defendants.” Joint letter of 8/26/05, at 2. According to Mr. Tennison, the criminal files of the

District Attorney may reflect whether the police ever informed prosecutors of the offers or payments.

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 368 Filed 09/08/05 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

1

 At the hearing on this discovery dispute, the Court advised Mr. Tennison to immediately serve

a subpoena on the District Attorney/State in the event that the Court might rule in favor of the City.

2

The City does not dispute that the files of the District Attorney are relevant for the reason

stated above. However, the City contends that it cannot turn over the District Attorney files -- or any

portion of the files -- because the City does not have control of the files; rather, the files belong to

the State: “[I]n her capacity as public prosecutor, the District Attorney is a State, rather than City

actor.” See id. at 4. Mr. Tennison argues otherwise, asserting that his request for the documents

“implicates only the District Attorney’s role as an administrative custodian of its own historical

records, not its role as an investigator or prosecutor. . . . Even if such materials should be considered

State property when the District Attorney is investigating and prosecuting, they must be City records

when that function is concluded.” Id. at 3. Here, “[a]ll the files [sought by Mr. Tennison] . . . relate

to criminal prosecutions concluded over a decade ago.” Id.

The question for the Court, therefore, is who has possession, custody, or control of the

District Attorney files for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34: the City or the State. If

the City has possession, custody, or control, then the City should produce the documents; if not, then

Mr. Tennison will need to subpoena the documents from the State.1 

In Rivero v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. App. 4th 1048 (1997), a state appellate court was

presented with the very issue of whether the closed criminal files of the District Attorney should be

considered State records or City records. Notably, the parties in Rivero made the same or similar

arguments as the parties in the instant case in support of their respective positions. Unfortunately,

the state court ultimately declined to rule on the matter. See id. at 1058 (“Whether to describe the

district attorney as a state actor or a local actor and whether to characterize the district attorney’s

closed files as state records or local records begs the central question before us -- [i.e.,] [d]oes

compelled disclosure of closed criminal investigation files obstruct the investigatory function of the

district attorney’s office, thus contravening [California Government Code] section 25303?”). The

parties in this case acknowledge that no other court has addressed this issue.

The Court concludes that the closed criminal files of the District Attorney are within the

possession, custody, or control of the State and not the City. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 368 Filed 09/08/05 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

2

 Of course, even though the State has a continuing prosecutorial interest in a file does not mean

that the file is automatically immune from discovery. The Court shall resolve the issue of whether the

files sought by Mr. Tennison should be produced by the District Attorney (as representative of the State)

with the District Attorney’s motion to quash which should be filed on September 12, 2005.

3

notes first that Mr. Tennison does not strenuously dispute that active criminal files of the District

Attorney would belong to the State since the District Attorney would clearly be acting in an

investigative or prosecutorial role and the files would not simply be “historical records.” Joint letter

of 8/26/05, at 3. The question thus becomes whether a file is transformed from a State record to a

City record once the criminal case is closed. The Court finds that the files remain State records

because, even though the files may be closed, the State continues to have prosecutorial interests in

the files. Such files may contain sensitive information obtained in the course of investigation and

prosecution, including names of informants, prospective witnesses, and attorney work product. If the

files were converted to City records once closed, then the State (and the District Attorney) would no

longer have control over the files in spite of these prosecutorial interests and the files would be

subject to control by the City. As pointed out by the state court in Rivero, the California legislature

has not amended the California Public Records Act to make closed criminal files accessible to the

public.2 See Rivero, 54 Cal. App. 4th at 1059.

Accordingly, the closed criminal files of the District Attorney are within the possession,

control, or custody of the State, not the City, and if Mr. Tennison wishes to obtain those files -- or

any portion thereof or any information contained therein -- then he must subpoena the files from the

District Attorney as representative of the State. 

B. Police Chronological Logs

In June 2005, the City produced redacted police chronological logs from other homicide

investigations. See Joint letter of 8/26/05, at 5. When Mr. Tennison challenged the redactions, the

City stated that the redactions were made to ensure the safety of potential homicide witnesses. In a

subsequent meet and confer, the City agreed to produce unredacted versions under a protective order

providing for attorney’s eyes only. The parties now dispute what the protective order should require. 

See id. 

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 368 Filed 09/08/05 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

The Court orders the parties to meet and confer and draft a joint proposed protective order

that conforms with the guidelines provided by the Court at the hearing on September 7, 2005. As a

general matter, counsel for Mr. Tennison shall be permitted to view the documents at issue, as well

as support staff for counsel (e.g., legal assistants, secretaries) and experts hired by counsel,

contingent upon each person signing an agreement to comply with the protective order. Counsel for

Mr. Tennison should “pre-disclose” to the City the names of all attorneys and staff members who

will view the documents at issue but there shall be no such “pre-disclosure” requirement with respect

to experts. In addition, there should be strict document control measures for the documents, and the

documents should be returned to the City at the end of the litigation.

If there is a protective order term upon which the parties are unable to agree, then each party

should submit its own proposed version of the term for the Court’s consideration.

The joint proposed protective order shall be filed with the Court by September 16, 2005.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall not order the City to produce the District Attorney

files sought by Mr. Tennison and the parties should submit a joint proposed protective order

regarding the police chronological logs by September 16, 2005.

This order disposes of Docket No. 361.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 368 Filed 09/08/05 Page 4 of 4