Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574-23/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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 DENYING DISTRICT

ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO QUASH

(Docket No. 372)

Plaintiff John Tennison served a subpoena on the District Attorney, seeking – with respect to

ten criminal cases prosecuted by the District Attorney – documents related to offers of payment or

payments from the Secret Witness Program to any testifying witness or nontestifying informant or

documents otherwise referencing the Secret Witness Program. The ten criminal cases appear to be

from the 1980s and 1990s and are no longer active. The District Attorney now moves to quash that

subpoena. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

DENIES the motion to quash.

Mr. Tennison seeks production of the District Attorney files to support his § 1983 Monell

claim against the City – i.e., that 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 District Attorney from complying with

his duties to turn over impeachment evidence to criminal defendants. According to Mr. Tennison,

the 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 375 Filed 09/16/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

The District Attorney raises various arguments as to why the subpoena should be quashed

but none are persuasive. Although the District Attorney briefed Doubleday v. Ruh, 149 F.R.D. 601

(E.D. Cal. 1993), the District Attorney conceded at the hearing that she was not relying on an

attorney work product privilege and that the only privilege she was asserting was the official

information privilege. 

In Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (1987), Judge Brazil of this District listed the

factors that are commonly considered in determining whether information is protected by the official

information privilege. Those factors include whether the police investigation has been completed or

is ongoing and the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities

disclosed (e.g., confidential informants). In the instant case, it does not appear that there are any

ongoing investigations with respect to the ten criminal cases at issue. The District Attorney does not

claim that there are ongoing investigations. The main concern of the District Attorney is the need to

protect the identities of confidential informants and the privacy rights of defendants.

However, most of the information sought by Mr. Tennison has to do with offers of payment

or payments made to witnesses who testified in the prosecution – i.e., their identities were not secret. 

To the extent Mr. Tennison also seeks information about nontestifying informants to whom

payments were made, those documents may be redacted to keep the names of such witnesses

confidential and shall be produced for attorneys eyes only until further order of this Court. 

Moreover, since the documents only involve payments from the Secret Witness Program and do not

pertain to the defendant, they do not compromise defendant’s privacy rights.

Pursuant to the representation made by counsel for the District Attorney at the hearing, the

documents from the files for which a case number has been found shall be produced by 5:00 p.m. on

Wednesday, September 21, 2005; the documents from the two case files for which case numbers

have just been ascertained shall be produced by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 22, 2005. As to

any case for which there is no District Attorney file for a particular case or which, after diligent

///

///

///

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 375 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

search, is missing, the District Attorney shall provide a declaration so stating. If the District

Attorney determines that there are no responsive documents to the subpoena, the District Attorney

shall so state in a declaration.

This order disposes of Docket No. 372.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2005

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 375 Filed 09/16/05 Page 3 of 3