Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00959/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00959-6/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

*E-filed 10/3/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEPHEN LEAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER K. SIEGEL, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case No. C05-00959 JW

FURTHER ORDER RE:

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

COMPEL

Re: Docket No. 49

 Plaintiff Stephen Leal brings this excessive force civil rights action against the City of

San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, and various law enforcement and correctional officers. 

On September 12, 2006, this court ordered the County to produce for in camera

inspection all investigative files, including reports, deriving from citizen complaints, sustained

or not, regarding any use of force by any officer who allegedly used force against plaintiff. The

County was to highlight any portions that it contends warrant redaction. The County did so.

The court has completed its review of the redacted files. For the most part, the

redactions appropriately protect the privacy interests of third party inmates and officers. The

great majority of redactions apply to names and other identifying information. The court

approves of these redactions of identifying information. 

The court finds, however, that the approximately 25 proposed redactions of medical and 

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 73 Filed 10/03/06 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

health-related information are not necessary to protect privacy, and could limit the utility of

these documents for plaintiff. The County's proposals in this area are thus denied. Third-party

names and identifying information embedded within a sentence concerning medical issues

should remain redacted. Finally, on the page stamped SCC/LEAL00179, the phrase "See

original report for details" does not merit redaction. 

The court ORDERS the County to produce the files to plaintiff's counsel by Friday,

October 6, 2006, with third-party names and identifying information redacted, but with

medical/health information not redacted. Plaintiff's counsel may share these documents with

plaintiff's experts, but not with plaintiff or anyone else. All copies shall be returned to

defendants at the conclusion of the case. All information generated pursuant to this order shall

be used solely for purposes of litigating and/or settling the present lawsuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/3/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 73 Filed 10/03/06 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Louis Patrick Dell louis.p.dell@att.net 

Sean Erenstoft sean@erenstoft.com, push4ward@aol.com 

Nora Valerie Frimann cao.main@sanjoseca.gov, Brande.Gex@sanjoseca.gov 

Clifford S. Greenberg cao.main@ci.sj.ca.us 

Lisa Herrick cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Michael L. Rossi michael.rossi@cco.co.scl.ca.us, 

John L. Winchester , III john.winchester@cco.sccgov.org 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up

for e-filing.

Dated: 10/3/06 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 73 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3