Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03962/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03962-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACIE PLUMMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03962-VC 

ORDER RE INVESTIGATIVE 

REPORTS

Pursuant to the court's order, the City submitted copies of three reports prepared by Sue 

Ann Van Dermyden for in camera inspection. The court has reviewed the report dated January 14, 

2013, but it has not bothered to review the other two reports, because the proposed redactions in 

the January 14 report are absurdly overbroad. For example, it is obvious that the investigator's 

analysis and findings about whether Knight violated the City's harassment policies, see pages 39-

42, fall directly within the scope of the waiver and should not be redacted. 

The City has wasted the court's time by submitting reports with such overbroad redactions. 

The City is directed to resubmit the reports with proposed redactions that are reasonable by 

Friday, August 7. 

The City should be guided by the following:

 The City is reminded that it will be permitted to turn over the reports to Plummer 

pursuant to a protective order, and therefore disclosure of the contents of the reports 

to Plummer will not necessarily result in disclosure to others. Whether others are 

entitled to disclosure of the contents of the reports is a question the court will 

consider separately if necessary.

 The court construes the waiver narrowly enough to protect the strong public 

interest in encouraging witnesses to speak freely in an investigation like this. 

Case 3:14-cv-03962-VC Document 93 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Therefore, the City may redact information that would reveal the identities of 

witnesses who spoke with the investigator.

 However, mere references to the conduct of other City employees should not be 

redacted. For example, an allegation by Plummer that a certain employee did or 

did not do something should not be redacted.

 No allegations or statements by Plummer, Knight, or Lindsay should be redacted.

 None of the investigator's analyses or recommendations should be redacted, except 

to the extent that they reveal the identities of witnesses (other than Plummer, 

Knight, or Lindsay) with whom the investigator spoke. Similarly, none of the 

background information that contributed to the investigator's analyses or 

recommendations should be redacted, except to the extent it reveals the identities of 

witnesses (other than Plummer, Knight, or Lindsay). 

 The court also construes the City's waiver narrowly in the following respect: there 

is a distinction between Van Dermyden's investigation into Knight's conduct, the 

findings of which were disclosed in the press release, and any other investigation(s) 

into the alleged underlying conduct by subordinates, which was not. For example, 

the press release states that Knight "did not encourage a subordinate to retaliate 

against Plummer." The portions of the report that concern whether Knight 

encouraged a subordinate to retaliate may not be redacted, but the City may redact 

any statements or information about whether the subordinate did in fact retaliate.

If the City does not take a reasonable approach to the redactions, the court will simply 

order that the reports be disclosed unredacted to Plummer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03962-VC Document 93 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 2