Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02315/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02315-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD LOUIS ZACKERY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2315 MCE DAD P

vs.

STOCKTON POLICE DEP’T, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a § 1983 civil rights action

alleging the excessive use of force by Stockton Police Department officers during plaintiff’s

arrest. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that officers unnecessarily used a “taser” and a police dog in

arresting plaintiff. He alleges that he suffered numerous injuries, including dog bites, and that 

the officers delayed medical treatment of injuries. Before the court are plaintiff’s motions to

compel discovery, a request for the appointment of counsel and plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time to file his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment/summary

adjudication.

I. Motions to Compel

In his first motion to compel, filed on October 26, 2006, plaintiff seeks the

production of medical records and supplemental police reports. The proof of service for this

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 9
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

2

motion indicates that it was served only on the California Attorney General’s Office. However,

the defendants in this action are represented by the Stockton City Attorney’s Office. Because

plaintiff’s first motion to compel was not properly served on counsel for defendants, it will be

denied.

In his second motion to compel the production of documents, filed on December

26, 2006, plaintiff seeks “citizen complaints” concerning prior acts of misconduct by the

arresting officers, defendants Breckenridge, Hachler, Beard, and Snyder. (Mot. to Compel, filed

12/26/06, Ex. 1.) This discovery request was served on each defendant. Below the court will set

out the discovery request in question and defendants’ response.

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT NO. 9

Produce all citizen complaints filed against the following Officers.

Defendants: Hachler Kelvin - Breckenridge Edward - Snyder

Theoure - Beard Harrison.

For False Arrest. Excessive Force. From What Years The

Defendants Was Employ For the Stockton Police Department.

(Id.) Defendants Breckenridge, Hachler, Beard, and Snyder provided the following response to

this request:

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT NO. 9

 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague

and overbroad as to “all citizen complaints” as well as requests

information that pertains to other officers as this defendant is not

the custodian of records. Additionally, the request seeks

information that is beyond the five years that state law requires any

complaints be maintained. Moreover, defendant objects on the

ground that the information requested is “official information,”

confidential, privileged, and violates the right to privacy pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. The information requested, if it exists at

all, would be contained in personnel evaluations and/or internal

affairs investigations and/or complaints which are considered as a

matter of public policy to be confidential. Therefore, no

documents, if they exist, will be produced.

(Id., Ex. 2.) 

In opposing plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants argue that in addition to the

requested documents being confidential and privileged, plaintiff has failed to adequately identify

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 9
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

 Plaintiff also addresses defendants’ argument regarding the parties before the court, 1

contending that the Stockton Police Department is in fact “a party/defendant of this action.” 

(Reply, filed 2/26/07, at 3.) Plaintiff is mistaken. Regardless of the case caption used for

documents filed in this action, the operative pleading is the amended complaint which does not

include the Stockton Police Department as a defendant. In addition, the court did not order

service of process on the Stockton Police Department. 

 In opposing plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants have focused their argument on 2

plaintiff’s request number five, rather than request number nine which is the subject of the

motion. Request number 5 provides, “Produce prior complaints on police at the scene of the

crime on 9/02/2004, for use of excessive force.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, filed 1/29/07, Ex. 1.) As

set out above, request number 9 seeks citizen complaints filed against the specific officers

identified therein. Accordingly, defendants’ argument that the request is overbroad because it

does not identify the officers about whom information is sought is inapplicable to the request at

issue. 

3

the information he seeks. Accordingly, in this third motion to compel plaintiff renews and limits

his request to citizen complaints that were filed against the named police officers over the past

five years. Plaintiff also agrees that personal information, such as, social security numbers,

phone numbers and addresses, should be redacted from any documents produced pursuant to this

request. (Mot. to Compel, filed 1/29/07 at 3.) 

Plaintiff provides the following argument in support of this aspect of his motion to

compel:

If there exist past complaints that those Defendants identified

committed similar acts before, rules of and purpose [sic] discovery

favor disclosure. . . . Also any prior complaints that shows the

propensity of these officers to be dishonest is relevant to this action

. . . .

(Mot. to Compel, filed 1/29/07 at 2-3.)1

Defendants again argue in perfunctory fashion that the documents sought are

protected by privilege and confidentiality and that the request is overbroad. In addition

defendants argue that as individuals they do not have possession, custody or control over citizen

complaints filed against them.2

As noted above, this is a civil rights action alleging excessive use of force by the

defendant police officers in arresting plaintiff. As now limited, plaintiff seeks discovery of

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 9
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

4

citizen complaints of excessive use of force filed against these same officers during the past five

years. That request is not overbroad. Even with respect to claims of excessive use of force

against individual officers, such personnel file information has been found to be quite relevant

because they may reveal the defendant officers’ credibility, motive and patterns of behavior. 

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 615 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Hampton v. City of San Diego,

147 F.R.D. 227, 229 (S.D. Cal. 1993). 

Defendants principal objection is a general claim of confidentiality and privilege

with respect to such documents. Federal courts ordinarily recognize a right of privacy that can be

raised in response to discovery requests. Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497

(10th Cir. 1992); Cook v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548 (E.D. Cal. 1990). The

party or person whose privacy is affected may either object to the discovery request or seek a

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

objection or request for protective order requires a balancing of the need for the particular

information against the privacy right asserted. Perry v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 734 F.2d

1441 (11th Cir. 1984); Rubin v. Regents of University of California, 114 F.R.D. 1 (N.D. Cal.

1986). 

Similarly, federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official

information. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975),

aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). However, the so-called official information privilege is only a

“qualified privilege” that “must be formally asserted and delineated in order to be raised

properly.” Kerr, 511 F.2d at 198 (citations omitted).

The privilege belongs to the Government and must be asserted by

it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is not

to be lightly invoked. There must be a formal claim of privilege,

lodged by the head of the department which has control over the

matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. . .

Id. (quoting United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953)). Further, “[t]he claiming official

must ‘have seen and considered the contents of the documents and himself have formed the view

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 4 of 9
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

5

that on grounds of public interest they ought not to be produced’ and state with specificity the

rationale of the claimed privilege.” Id. (quoting Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 8 n.20). See also

Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“The

party claiming privilege has the burden to establish its existence.... It will not be considered

unless presented in a deliberate, considered and reasonably specific manner ....).

Specifically, in determining the protection afforded by the official information

privilege, courts conduct a case by case balancing analysis, in which the interests of the party

seeking discovery are weighed against the interests of the governmental entity asserting the

privilege. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653,

660 (N.D. Cal. 1987). This balancing approach should be "moderately pre-weighted in favor of

disclosure." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661. However, the party invoking the

privilege must at the outset make a "substantial threshold showing" by way of a declaration or

affidavit from a responsible official with personal knowledge of the matters to be attested to in

the affidavit. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (citing Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669). See also King v. Conde,

121 F.R.D. 180, 189 (E.D. N.Y. 1988). 

The affidavit must include: ‘(1) an affirmation that the agency

generated or collected the material in issue and has maintained its

confidentiality; (2) a statement that the official has personally

reviewed the material in question; (3) a specific identification of

the governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by

disclosure of the material to plaintiff and/or his lawyer; (4) a

description of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted

protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to

significant governmental or privacy interests, and (5) a projection

of how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if

disclosure were made.’ 

Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 670). 

If the party invoking the privilege fails to satisfy this threshold burden the

documents in issue should be disclosed. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 If the threshold showing 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 5 of 9
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

 This balancing analysis includes consideration of the following factors: (1) The extent 3

to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the

government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having

their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which government self-evaluation and consequent

program improvement will by chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual

data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking discovery is an actual or potential

defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the

incident in question; (6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any

intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8)

whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the information

sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; (10) the importance of the

information sought to the plaintiff's case. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n.4

(N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 663 (N.D. Cal. 1987)); see

also Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973)). 

6

requirements are met, the reviewing court is to balance each party's interests in considering

disclosure. Id. at 613 (citing Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 671).3

The court has determined that defendants have failed to meet their initial burden

in invoking the official information privilege. No responsible official came forward to properly

assert and delineate any claim of privilege. Defendants merely have offered the vague and

conclusory assertion that citizen complaints against the defendant officers should not be

produced because they contain privileged and confidential information, disclosure of which

would violate the right to privacy. See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613; Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669

(“Unless the government, through competent declarations, shows the court what interests would

be harmed, how disclosure under a protective order would cause the harm, and how much harm

there would be, the court cannot conduct a meaningful balancing analysis.”) (emphasis in

original). Because defendants have failed to make the required threshold showing, their

objection based on privilege must be overruled.

Finally, defendants argue that as individual defendants, they do not have

possession and control of citizen complaints filed against them and cannot produce documents

they do not have.” (Id. at 3-4.) The court acknowledges that the named defendants do not have

personal procession of their personnel files in which citizen complaints against them would be

contained. However, such are relevant to this action for the reasons set forth above and plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 6 of 9
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 No proof of service is attached to the request for production of documents.

4

7

is entitled to them. While the court could direct plaintiff to issue a subpoena to the Custodian of

Records for the Stockton Police Department calling for production of the records, that would

unnecessarily consume even more time in dealing with this relatively routine request for

discovery. Accordingly, the court will direct counsel for defendants to make the necessary

inquiries and arrangements for the requested citizen complaint records to be produced to

plaintiff. Those records may be redacted prior to production to eliminate all personal

information, such as, social security numbers, phone numbers and addresses. 

In his third motion to compel the production of documents, plaintiff seeks medical

records from the Stockton Police Department. Specifically, plaintiff’s discovery request states:

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT NO. 2

Produce all medical records, photo, physical examine reports,

physician note, and progressive note report filed by treating

physician(s), while in the County of San Joaquin Jail Facility,

dated between 9/02/2004 thru 11/29/2004

(Mot. to Compel, filed 1/29/07, Ex. 1. ) 4

 Defendant Snyder provided the following response to this request: “Defendant

Snyder is unaware of any documents in his possession responsive to this request.” (Id., Ex. 1(a)

at 2.) In their opposition to the motion to compel, defendants argue that the Stockton Police

Department was not served with the amended complaint and that discovery can only be directed

to defendants Breckenridge, Hachler, Beard and Snyder. (Opp’n at 2.) Defendants also argue

that plaintiff has not explained in his motion “how or why these individual defendants would

have his medical records, other than to state that he was treated by medical personnel while in the

custody of the Stockton Police Department. Defendants cannot produce documents which they

do not have.” (Id. at 3-4.) Again, the court acknowledges that the named defendants do not

likely have personal possession of plaintiff’s medical records. Nonetheless, these records are

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

relevant to plaintiff’s action and he is entitled to have access to his medical records. Therefore,

the court will direct counsel for defendants to make the necessary inquiries and arrangements for

the production of plaintiff’s medical records to him. 

II. Request for Appointment of Counsel

On November 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a second request for the appointment of

counsel. For the reasons set forth in the court’s August 28, 2006 order, the request will be

denied. Plaintiff is also advised, that the test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to

evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.

1983). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited

law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for

voluntary assistance of counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required

exceptional circumstances. 

III. Plaintiff’s Request for an Extension of Time

Lastly, plaintiff has filed a second request for an extension of time to file his

opposition to defendants’ April 5, 2007 motion for summary judgment. The court will grant

plaintiff’s request and order plaintiff to file his opposition following the production of his

medical records and the citizen complaint records by defendants’ counsel. In light of the pending

motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, the court will also vacate the dates for the

filing of pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and trial. New pretrial conference and trial dates

will be set if appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 26, 2006 motion to compel the production of documents is

denied;

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

2. Plaintiff’s December 26, 2006 and January 29, 2007 motions to compel the

production of documents are granted as follows: Within thirty days from the date of this order,

counsel for defendants shall obtain from the Stockton Police Department and produce copies of

plaintiff’s medical records for the period from September 2, 2004 to November 29, 2004 and

redacted versions of citizen complaints filed against officers Hachler, Breckenridge, Snyder and

Beard Harrison involving claims of excessive use of force over the past five years;

3. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, filed on November 29, 2006,

is denied;

4. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2007 request for an extension of time to file his opposition

to defendants’ April 5, 2007 motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, is granted;

5. Within thirty days from the receipt by plaintiff of the discovery ordered herein,

plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendants’ April 5, 2007 motion for summary judgment/

summary adjudication; and

7. The dates for the filing of pretrial statements, the pretrial conference and the

trial, as set forth in the October 20, 2006 scheduling order, are vacated. 

DATED: June 7, 2007.

DAD:4

zack2315.disc+

Case 2:05-cv-02315-MCE -DAD Document 42 Filed 06/07/07 Page 9 of 9