Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01942-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD M. SANSONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.C. THOMAS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR IN 

CAMERA REVIEW

Plaintiff Richard M. Sansone is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights 

based on Defendants’ excessive use of force against him while he was incarcerated at 

California State Prison - Corcoran. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order requiring initial disclosures (ECF No. 54), Defendant J.C. 

Thomas provided a privilege log indicating he was withholding certain documents pursuant to 

the Official Information Privilege. During a telephonic initial scheduling conference, as 

clarified in a subsequent order, the Court ordered Defendant to submit the documents that were 

withheld for in camera review. (ECF No. 67.) Defendant timely submitted such documents for 

in camera review. Defendant submitted a privilege log that had been produced to Plaintiff, a 

declaration by M. Kimbrell, the Litigation Coordinator at CSP – Corcoran, the original 

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 79 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 5
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

response to Plaintiff’s requests for production, and documents bates stamped AGO – 0037 to 

AGO – 0055. The Court has reviewed the documents and orders certain disclosures. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

In Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1975), 

aff'd 426 U.S. 394 (1976), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the government’s 

claim of the official information privilege as a basis to withhold documents sought under the 

Freedom of Information Act. It explained that the “common law governmental privilege 

(encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a 

qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing interests of the requesting litigant and 

subject to disclosure . . . .” Id.at 198 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

The Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring a balancing of interests and in 

camera review in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information privilege. See, 

e.g., Seminara v. City of Long Beach, 68 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming Magistrate Judge 

order compelling disclosure and stating “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege 

for official information.”); Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th 

Cir. 1976) (“Also, as required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly 

appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”); Kerr, 511 

F.2d at 198. “Government personnel files are considered official information. To determine 

whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of 

disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars 

discovery.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), as amended 

on denial of reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 24, 1991) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted).

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant has withheld reports, memoranda, and other documents related to a 

personnel investigation associated with the underlying event in this case. Specifically, the 

withheld documents include:

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 79 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

 An Incident Commander’s Review Report, dated October 28, 2013;

 Manager Review reports for two levels of review, dated October 30, 2013 and 

December 10, 2013;

 Four reports from the Institutional Executive Review Committee, one dated May 

13, 2014 and three dated May 7, 2014; and,

 A report detailing an interview with Plaintiff, dated December 10, 2013.

Notably, some of the documents reference a video tape interview of Plaintiff. It is 

unclear, however, whether that interview has been produced to Plaintiff or is included within 

the documents for which Defendant is claiming a privilege. 

The Declaration of M. Kimbrell details a number of reasons why the documents should 

not be disclosed. Among other reasons, Kimbrell states that the process and findings of 

investigations conducted by CDCR are confidential and that such confidentiality promotes 

truthfulness in the investigation. Moreover, Kimbrell argues, the investigatory process that 

CDCR uses must be protected from inmates to preserve it from potential manipulation. 

Moreover, the documents include sensitive personal information of CDCR employees, which is 

protected by state law.

Defendants may withhold personal information that is required to protect the privacy 

and security of correctional officers. This decision is without prejudice to a later request by 

Plaintiff for sufficient information about the witnesses to compel their attendance at deposition 

or trial, if necessary. To the extent the documents discuss the investigation policies or 

procedures that CDCR follows or used in its internal investigation, they are also privileged. 

Where, however, the documents discuss the underlying facts of the case, no privilege attaches 

and the documents are discoverable. In some cases, the reviewed documents contain both 

categories of information and it is appropriate to redact the documents before production.

Specifically, the Court will allow Defendants to withhold Privilege Log Item Nos. 1, 2, 

and 3 in their entireties. Those documents discuss the applicable CDCR policies and contain 

little or no unique factual information describing the underlying incident. Rather, they concern 

administrative actions taken as a result of the investigation. Such internal CDCR proceedings 

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 79 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

are not relevant to the factual questions in this case and any relevant information is outweighed 

by concerns regarding revealing internal CDCR procedures. 

Privilege Log Item No. 4 is a Memorandum by the Institutional Executive Review 

Committee, dated May 13, 2014. This document contains a variety of information, including 

factual information about the incident in question. It also discusses, however, investigative 

actions taken after the incident, as well as information about other, unrelated incidents. It also 

contains information about CDCR employees unrelated to the incident in this case. The Court 

thus determines that this document may be produced in redacted form. In particular, the 

portions of AGO – 0044 and AGO – 0045 that describe only the sequence of events that 

occurred on October 22, 2013 should be produced to Plaintiff. The remainder of the 

Memorandum can be redacted, including, for example, the lower half of AGO – 0045 and the 

remainder of the document. Substantial portions of the cover page to the memorandum (AG –

0043) have little or no relevance and may be redacted, as well. 

Privilege Log Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are, similar to Nos. 1 – 3, focused largely on the 

administrative actions after the incident occurred and contain little information of relevance to 

the claims in this case. Thus, the privilege is properly asserted with respect to these documents 

and disclosure is not required.

Finally, Privilege Log No. 8 is a report dated December 10, 2013 that summarizes an 

interview of Plaintiff that was conducted after the incident. This document consists of factual 

information that Plaintiff provided in his interview with correctional officers and does not 

appear to include information related to actions or investigations that occurred after the 

incident. This document should thus be produced.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 14 days from this order, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the documents 

withheld under the official information privilege and provided in camera to the 

Court as described in this order. 

2. Within 30 days from this order, Defendants shall either provide Plaintiff with the 

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 79 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

video of Plaintiff’s November 22, 2013 interview or provide it to the Court for 

further in camera review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01942-DAD-EPG Document 79 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 5