Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953-2/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

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVON LAMAR TORBERT, CDCR #P96193,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

ORDER ON PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING IN

vs. CAMERA REVIEW 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; MADSEN;

STORTON, BLACK; MIDECKE;

OGSBERT; JOHN DOES, 

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking a response to interrogatories from 

Defendants Madsen and Miedecke. [ECF No. 53.] On June 25, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition

to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. [ECF No. 64.] On July 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting

in part and denying part Plaintiff’s motion to compel and directing Defendant Miedecke to lodge a

privilege log and a copy of any disputed documents for in camera review. [ECF No. 77.] The

privilege log and disputed documents were lodged with Judge McCurine’s chambers on July 25, 2012. 

The Court has completed its in camera review and issues the following order. 

///

///

///

///

- 1 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 88 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 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

II. IN CAMERA REVIEW

A. Privileges

Plaintiff’s civil rights action arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a federal statute. Because

Plaintiff’s federal rights may be impacted by Defendant’s assertions of privilege, it is well

established that the existence of any claimed privilege is governed by principles of federal

common law. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989); see also Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114

F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (“It obviously would make no sense to permit state law to

determine what evidence is discoverable in cases brought pursuant to federal statutes whose

central purpose is to protect citizens from abuses of power by state or local authorities. If state law

controlled, state authorities could effectively insulate themselves from constitutional norms simply

by developing privilege doctrines that made it virtually impossible for plaintiffs to develop the

kind of information they need to prosecute their federal claims.”) Aside from a privacy objection,

Defendant’s privilege log cites to state privileges. However, as explained above, “only federal

common law governs the adjudication of federal rights.” Leon v. County of San Diego, 202

F.R.D. 631, 636 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (emphasis added) (citing Taylor v. Los Angeles Police Dept.

1999 WL 33101661, *3 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 1999) (“The so-called privileges raised by

Defendants under various provisions of the California Evidence and Penal Codes are not federal

evidentiary privileges and do not warrant discussion.”) Accordingly, the Court denies

Defendant’s objections based on state evidentiary privileges.

Federal courts generally recognize a right of privacy that can be raised in response to

discovery requests. Johnson ex rel Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 1992)

(denying discovery of names of participants in a medical study due to privacy interests of the

individual participants). The party whose privacy is affected may object or seek a protective

order. Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d 885, 889 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Resolution of a privacy

objection requires a balancing of the need for the particular information against the privacy right

asserted. Cook v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-551 (E.D. Cal. 1990)

(balancing targeted individual’s right of privacy against public’s need for discovery in

employment discrimination case.) After review of the various course outlines and training

- 2 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 88 Filed 07/30/12 Page 2 of 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

certificates lodged with chambers, the Court finds the documents do not contain the type of

privileged personal information that would typically be present in personnel records. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s need for information on training Defendant received outweighs

Defendant’s claim of privacy. Defendant’s privacy objection is overruled. 

B. Relevance

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery of material that is (1)

“not privileged” and (2) “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

Id. 

A relevant matter is “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other

matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162

F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

(1978).) Items typically found in personnel files, such as records concerning training and

performance, have been held to be relevant on the issues of credibility, notice to the employer,

ratification by the employer, motive of the officers and malicious intent. See Soto v. City of

Concord, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (citing Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 229 (S.D. Cal.

1993). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges correctional officers used excessive force in violation of the Eighth

Amendment during an attempt to administer medications, which resulted in the use of pepper

spray and a taser gun against him. [ECF No. 1 at pp.12-13.]1

 After a careful review of the

disputed documents, the Court finds many of the course outlines and training certificates that have

been withheld bear on what Officer Miedecke may have learned or knew about applying force in a

good-faith effort to maintain discipline versus the use of force maliciously to cause harm.

///

/// 

1

 The document numbers and page numbers cited herein refer to those assigned by the Case Management/Electronic Case

Filing (CM/ECF) system.

- 3 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 88 Filed 07/30/12 Page 3 of 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

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following course outlines and training certificates to be

produced in full:

EM 000001-000004

EM 000005

EM 000006

EM 000010

EM 000011-16

EM 000017

III. DISCLOSURE SHALL OCCUR SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Courts have fulfilled a plaintiff’s need for discovery while protecting a defendant’s privacy

by ordering the production of documents subject to a protective order limiting the access to the

material at issue to plaintiff, his counsel and those experts who require such information to formulate

an opinion. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995.)

The Court finds that a protective order will serve the interests of both parties in facilitating

discovery and yet protecting the privacy of the parties involved. Therefore, the Court orders the

parties to enter into a protective order governing the documents the Court has ordered to be disclosed. 

Defendant’s counsel shall prepare a proposed protective order and provide it to Plaintiff. Once the

proposed protective order has been signed by both parties, Defendant’s counsel shall lodge the order

with Judge McCurines’s chambers no later than August 27, 2012. Service of the documents ordered

disclosed shall occur within ten (10) calendar days after the Court signs the protective order. All

documents produced must be bates-stamped. Every page of every document must have a number.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In accordance with the Court’s findings expressed above, Defendant is ordered to produce

the documents identified above pursuant to protective order:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2012

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S.District Court

- 4 - 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 88 Filed 07/30/12 Page 4 of 4