Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02534/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02534-3/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

RAMON LADALE SINEGAL, CDCR

# J-95722,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. DUARTE, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11CV2534-BEN(JMA)

ORDER FOLLOWING IN

CAMERA REVIEW AND

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL [DOC. NO.

60] AND ENTERING

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Ramon Ladale Sinegal, who is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a), filed a motion to compel discovery on January 21, 2014. [Doc. No.

60]. Defendants Verduzco’s and Ortega’s Opposition to the motion was

filed on February 7, 2014. [Doc. No. 68.] Pursuant to the Court’s order, the

documents that are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion were produced for in

camera review. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of documents responsive to

request numbers 1 and 4 of his Request for Production of Documents, Set

One. [Doc. No. 60, pp. 1-3 of 17.] Request No. 1 calls for “[a]ny and all

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 1 of 8
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

grievances, complaints, or other documents received by prison staff at

Calipatria concerning the mistreatment of inmates by Defendants Verduzco

and Ortega, and any memoranda, investigative files, or other documents

created in response to such complaints.” [Doc. No. 68-1, Ex. A, p. 4 of 38.]

Request No. 4 calls for “[a]ny logs, lists, or other documentation reflecting

grievances filed by Calipatria inmates against Verduzco and Ortega.” Id.

In response to Request No. 1, Defendants produced records of

Plaintiff’s two administrative grievances against Verduzco and Ortega and

one administrative grievance against Verduzco, including the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) responses

thereto, but have withheld from production the following three categories of

documents that are responsive to both document requests:

1. Confidential Supplements to the Appeal Inquiries arising from

Plaintiff’s appeals against Verduzco and Ortega;

2. Appeals submitted by third-party inmates as to Verduzco and

Ortega and the Confidential Supplements thereto; 

3. A summary list in chart form of inmate appeals against

Correctional Officers bearing the last names Verduzco and

Ortega.

Defendants have asserted the official information privilege applies with

respect to all three categories of documents and also that third party

privacy interests necessitate withholding the records of third party

administrative grievances, as well as the summary chart. [Id., Ex. C, p. 19

of 38.]

A. Relevance

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense—including the existence, description, nature, custody,

condition, and location of any documents or other tangible

2

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 2 of 8
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

things and the identity and location of persons who know of any

discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved

in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at

the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules

is extremely broad. See, e.g., Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653,

668 (N.D. Cal. 1987). The party opposing discovery bears the burden of

resisting disclosure. Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 (C.D. Cal.

1992). 

B. Official Information Privilege - Log Numbers 1 - 3

Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official

information. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Northern Dist. of Cal.,

511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975). The discoverability of official documents

is determined under the “balancing approach that is moderately preweighted in favor of disclosure.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661. The party

asserting the privilege must properly invoke the privilege by making a

“substantial threshold showing.” Id. at 669. The party must file an

objection and submit a declaration or affidavit from a responsible official

with personal knowledge of the matters attested to in the affidavit. Id. The

affidavit must include: (1) an affirmation that the agency has generated or

collected all of the subject material and that it 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

the plaintiff and/or his or her attorney; (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 interest or

3

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 3 of 8
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

interests if disclosure were made. Id. at 670. 

Defendants submitted a declaration executed by P. Nava, the

Appeals Coordinator at Calipatria State Prison, who is familiar with CDCR’s

inmate appeals process and the processing of inmate appeals at that

institution, and who has reviewed the documents that are the subject of

Plaintiff’s motion. [Doc. No. 68-1, pp. 31-36, Nava Decl.¶ 2-4.] Nava states

these documents were collected and maintained confidentially by CDCR,

and identifies the governmental and privacy interests that would be

threatened by disclosure to Plaintiff. [Id. ¶ 3-4.] He also outlines the

potential for harm that could be caused as a result of the documents’

disclosure. Nava does not explain, however, how disclosure of any of the

documents subject to a carefully crafted protective order would create a

substantial risk of harm to these governmental or privacy interests. As the

party asserting the privilege, Defendants must properly invoke the privilege

by making a "substantial threshold showing," which they have not done 

Kelly, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669. The documents identified as Log numbers 1, 2

and 3 are accordingly not protected from production due to the official

information privilege.1

 

1

 Plaintiff states he needs these documents to show Defendants were aware Plaintiff

had made prior complaints against them before the incident that is the subject of this litigation.

[Doc. No. 60, p. 2 of 17.] Defendants argue the documents identified in Log number 1, the

confidential supplements to the inquiries arising from Plaintiff’s appeals against Verduzco and

Ortega, are not relevant to the defenses asserted in their pending motion for summary

judgment. [Doc. No. 68, pp. 14-15 of 17.] Defendants claim that because they only deny

recalling whether they had been informed of prior complaints, as opposed to denying whether

they were actually told of prior complaints, these documents are not relevant. [Doc. No. 68, p.

14 of 17.] 

Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in a pattern of behavior that was harassing to

Plaintiff and his visitor, Ms. Jackson. [Doc. No. 5, pp. 3-4 or 43.] Plaintiff and Ms. Jackson

made several complaints about Defendants. [Id.] Plaintiff claims thereafter, when Ms. Jackson

visited Plaintiff on January 8, 2011, Defendants terminated Ms. Jackson’s visit without cause

and utilized excessive force against Plaintiff in retaliation for the prior complaints. [Id.] Thus,

records regarding Plaintiff’s complaints made prior to and regarding the incident on January 8,

2011, are clearly relevant to the claims made by Plaintiff in this litigation.

4

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 4 of 8
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

C. Privacy Interests - Log Numbers 2 & 3

Defendants also assert third party privacy interests as their basis for

withholding the documents identified as Log numbers 2 and 3. [Doc. No.

68-1, pp. 9-10 and p.19.] Log number 2 consists of administrative

grievances that were submitted by third party inmates. Log number 3 is a

summary in chart form that includes a list of inmate appeals, by both third

party inmates and Plaintiff, against correctional officers bearing the

surnames Verduzco and Ortega. Because, as explained above,

Defendants have not properly invoked the official information privilege for

these documents, the Court will turn its attention to the asserted third party

privacy interests. 

Under federal law, the resolution of a privacy objection involves a

balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy right

asserted. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616 (citing Perry v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1984)). “In the context of the

disclosure of police files, courts have recognized that privacy rights are not

inconsequential.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. “Federal courts should

generally give some weight to privacy rights that are protected by state

constitutions or state statutes.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 656. “However, these

privacy interests must be balanced against the great weight afforded to

federal law in civil rights cases against police departments.” Soto, 162

F.R.D. at 616. 

Inmate complaints against staff are maintained confidentially by the

CDCR. [Doc. No. 68-1,Nava Decl. ¶ 6.] The documents identified in Log

Number 2 are complaints made by six individuals who are not parties to

this litigation. Log Number 3 is a summary in chart form of inmate

5

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 5 of 8
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

complaints.2 These inmates retain a privacy interest in their grievances and

would reasonably have an expectation their complaints would not be

shared with other inmates. [Id.] Because inmates’ names and files are

protected by § 3370 of the California Code of Regulations, the third party

inmates whose records are disclosed to Plaintiff would have to be informed

of the disclosure, even if their names and CDCR numbers were redacted

from the grievances. [Id. ¶ 8.] The release of this information to Plaintiff

could, therefore, jeopardize his own safety, the safety of the third party

inmates whose grievances are released, and staff members who may be

perceived as being responsible for the perceived breach in the security of

the complaints. [Id.¶¶ 6 & 8.] 

 The Court must balance these serious privacy concerns against

Plaintiff’s stated need for these documents. Plaintiff requests these

documents so he can obtain “evidence of the defendants’ prior or

subsequent acts to show motive (hostility to prisoners) and intent (to harm

prisoners who are outspoken)....” [Doc. No. 60, p. 2.] 

The Court has reviewed in camera the documents identified in Log

numbers 2 and 3. Based on the Court's in camera review, the undersigned

magistrate judge finds these documents are not relevant to Plaintiff's stated

need or the claims in this action. Production of these documents is also not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in

this case.3

 The third party privacy interests in these documents, therefore,

outweigh Plaintiff’s need for the information contained therein. 

2

 Log Number 3 also lists inmate complaints made as to other correctional officers

bearing the same last name as Defendant Ortega, which are not relevant to the claims made

by Plaintiff in this action.

3

 The discovery phase of this litigation ended on December 6, 2013. The Court has

previously ordered no discovery is permitted after this deadline. [Doc. No. 48.] 

6

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 6 of 8
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

D. Protective Order

Pursuant to the terms of this Order, CDCR will release to Plaintiff

identified in Log number 1 (hereinafter the “Materials”) by no later than

March 18, 2014. Due to their sensitive and confidential nature, any

Materials produced pursuant to this Order shall be used by Plaintiff and

Defendants solely in connection with the case of Sinegal v. Duarte, Case

No. 11-CV-2534-BEN(JMA), and not for any other purpose, including any

other litigation. 

Plaintiff is strictly prohibited from disclosing (including copying,

sharing, or discussing) the Materials or their contents under any

circumstances with any inmate. Furthermore, Plaintiff is strictly prohibited

from disclosing (including copying, sharing, or discussing) the Materials or

their contents to any person for any purpose, except to Defendants’

counsel of record, the Court, and necessary prison staff, for use only in

connection with this action. Notwithstanding these restrictions, Plaintiff may

discuss the contents of the Materials with potential witnesses; however, he

may do so only as it relates to this litigation. 

Plaintiff is strictly prohibited from copying the Materials or their

contents, except as required to attach to court filings. Plaintiff and

Defendants must endeavor to protect the confidentiality of the Materials

consistent with this Protective Order. If Plaintiff attaches the Materials to a

court filing, he must simultaneously file a Motion to File Confidential

Documents Under Seal, in which he clearly and specifically identifies the

Materials and requests they be filed under seal. 

At the conclusion of this matter, whether through trial, appeal,

collateral review, or other final disposition, all Materials, and all copies,

shall be returned to the Defendants’ counsel of record.

/ /

7

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 7 of 8
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

E. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART. Pursuant to the terms of this Order, CDCR

will release to Plaintiff the documents identified in Log number 1 by no later

than March 18, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2014

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

8

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 76 Filed 03/10/14 Page 8 of 8