Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00640/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00640-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN ALEXANDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-0640 TLN CKD

ORDER

Pursuant to the order filed November 19, 2015, defendants submitted documents for in 

camera review.1 Upon review of the documents and the declarations submitted in support of the 

claim of official information privilege, upon review of the documents in support and opposition

of the motion to compel, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing 

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendants claim all of the documents submitted for in camera review are protected under 

the official information privilege.2 This privilege is a qualified privilege and requires in the first 

 

1

 For documents identified on the supplemental privilege log as CDCR 5979-CDCR 5988 

(recorded interviews), defendants submitted a compact disc containing recordings of the subject 

interviews.

2

 For some of the documents, defendants have also asserted a variety of other privileges. In 

weighing whether production should be ordered, the court has considered all of the privileges 

Case 2:11-cv-00640-TLN-CKD Document 146 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 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

2

instance that a proper foundation be laid by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. See

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Miller v. Pancucci, 

141 F.R.F. 292, 299-300 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Defendants fail to meet this threshold burden. 

However, assuming arguendo that defendants’ affidavits are sufficient to lay the foundation for 

invoking the official information privilege, upon balancing the respective interests of the parties, 

and considering the range of factors applicable in this case, the court finds disclosure of the 

documents submitted for in camera review is appropriate in this matter, subject to a protective 

order. See generally Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 663-68 (N.D. Cal. 1987). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendants shall produce the documents 

submitted for in camera review (CDCR 5618-5996), including the compact disc containing 

recordings of the subject interviews (CDCR 5979-CDCR 5988). For documents CDCR 5657-

5706, defendants may redact names of informants and those inmates listed as enemies or targets.

2. Discovery produced pursuant to this order shall be produced in electronic format and shall 

be subject to the protective order entered concurrently with this order.

Dated: December 8, 2015

4 alexander0640.icr

 

asserted by defendants.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00640-TLN-CKD Document 146 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2