Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06069-16/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

KORY HUNZIKER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

D. ADAMS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-6069 OWW DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

[DOC #62]

I. Background

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed November 2, 2004, against defendants Adams, Yates, Espinosa and Cuevas for supervisory

liability and against Jennings, Cunningham and Burnias for failing to protect plaintiff from serious

harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to

compel production of documents by defendants Burnias, Cunningham and Jennings. 

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that Jennings, Cunningham and Burnias 

 failed to protect him from physical abuse in violation of the Eighth Amendment on November 29,

2002 when they intentionally and deliberately released two known gang affiliates of the Fresno

Bulldogs into the day room who were armed with home made weapons. Plaintiff contends that he

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 98 Filed 05/31/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

and another white inmate were attacked, violently assaulted and stabbed repeatedly. 

On November 17, 2005, plaintiff filed the present motion to compel seeking documents

which were withheld by defendants as privileged. The following categories of documents are at

issue:

(1) Informal Inquiry of staff misconduct and other inmates medical and disciplinary

attachments to Crime Incident Log No. SATF 03-02-11-0378.

(4) Post Orders;

(5) D.O.M. Section 55010, Resource Supplement 8 - Alarm Response;

(8) Confidential Program Status Report.

Defendants contend these documents are privileged under California Penal Code Section

823.5, and California Government Code Section 6254 and are protected from disclosure by the

privacy rights of staff and other inmates. Defendants also contend that disclosure would jeopardize

the safety and security of the institution, staff and inmates.

II. Legal Standard

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any

books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and

location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter . . . . 

The information sought need not be admissible at trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. 

In federal question cases, privileges asserted in response to discovery requests are

determined under federal law, not the law of the forum state. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United States v.

Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989); Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of

California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9 Cir. 1975). Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege th

for official information, also known as the governmental privilege, or state secret privilege. Kerr v.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9 Cir. 1975). th

The application of the official information privilege is “contingent upon the competing interests of

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 98 Filed 05/31/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure especially where protective measures are taken.” Id. 

Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be

raised in response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District,

542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.1976) (balancing the invasion of minor's privacy rights against the

court's need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir.1992),

cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (denying discovery of names of

participants in a medical study due to privacy interests of the individual participants); Cook v.

Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-51 (E.D.Cal.1990) (balancing targeted individual's

right of privacy against public's need for discovery in employment discrimination case). 

III. Discussion

The document entitled “Informal Inquiry of Staff Misconduct” is relevant to plaintiff’s claims

and is therefore discoverable. The balance of hardships tips in plaintiff’s favor for a limited

disclosure, subject to the conditions of this order and for use only in this litigation. Defendants shall

produce redacted versions of the documents to plaintiff pursuant to the terms of this order. 

Plaintiff’s request for documents relating to “other inmates medical and disciplinary records”

is vague and overbroad and violative of the privacy rights of the “other inmates.” The Court fails to

see the relevance of these documents and without more detail from plaintiff as drafted the request

must be denied.

Plaintiff’s request for “Post Orders” appears to cover documents which, if produced could

endanger the safety and security of the institution and persons within the institution. Because

plaintiff has failed to establish the relevancy of this document, this request is denied.

Defendants represent that the document entitled “D.O.M. Section 55010, Resource

Supplement 8- Alarm Response” sets forth in detail the institutional response to emergencies and

alarms; it states who is to respond to a given alarm, as well as the location of staging areas. Plaintiff

again makes no argument regarding the relevancy of this document and given the potential security

and safety risks to the institution, the Court denies this request.

Similarly, plaintiff makes no showing regarding the relevancy of “Confidential Program

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 98 Filed 05/31/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

Status Reports.” Defendants represent that these are reports of violence committed by some inmates

against others. The Court sees no relevance of such reports to the claims or defenses in this case.

IV. Order 

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel is HEREBY GRANTED in part. 

Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to produce the documents entitled “Informal Inquiry of Staff

Misconduct” to plaintiff within 10 days of this order subject to the following:

1. Defendants shall redact any and all personal information including but not limited to 

social security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, family information and

background information of defendants or any other CDC employees or inmates who

are not parties to this action. 

2. The documents shall be disclosed only to plaintiff representing himself in this action;

Court personnel and stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings as are

incidental to the preparation for the trial in this action; witnesses to whom the

documents may be disclosed during or in preparation for a deposition taken in this

matter or otherwise during the preparation for trial and trial, provided that the witness

may not leave any deposition with copies of any of the documents, and shall be

informed and agree to be bound by the terms of this order. 

3. Plaintiff shall not make copies of the confidential material except as necessary for

purposes of this litigation. 

4. The documents in plaintiff’s possession shall be destroyed or returned to the CDC

within 20 days of the time it is no longer needed for purposes of this litigation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06069-LJO -DLB Document 98 Filed 05/31/06 Page 4 of 4