Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06331/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06331-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 Review was delayed because the original submission consisted of a disorganized

stack of documents without Bates numbers and did not comply with Civil L-R 79-5. 

 *E-filed 4/8/08*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRISTINA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al. 

Defendants. /

Case No. C06-06331 JW (HRL)

ORDER ON PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING IN

CAMERA REVIEW

Re: Docket No. 26, 29

The parties stipulated to the terms of a protective order by which an Internal Affairs Unit

(IAU) report would be submitted to the court for in camera review. Defendants object to

producing the report on grounds of official information privilege. The submitted materials have

now been reviewed1

 and the supplemental briefs have been considered. 

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying events in this case stem from the 2006 "Mardi Gras celebration" in

downtown San Jose. Plaintiff Christina Sanchez alleges that she and several of her friends were

part of the crowd at the celebration. It appears that Sanchez and her friends interacted with

Case 5:06-cv-06331-JW Document 57 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2 Two motions are currently pending before the presiding judge related to this

production: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add Defendants (Sgt. Abruzzini and Officers

Camarillo and Nunes) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

2

police officers after one member of the group attempted to walk across the property surrounding

City Hall. According to Plaintiff, during the ensuing encounter with San Jose police officers,

she was pushed to the ground and struck with a police baton. Several other individuals who

were part of Plaintiff's group also claim that officers used unnecessary force (either against

themselves or other group members). 

Based on these events, Sanchez sues the City of San Jose and several "Doe" police

officers alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various other tort claims. Plaintiff wants

access to these documents because she has been unable to conclusively establish which officers

were involved in the encounter with Sanchez and her friends.2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

This court recognizes a right of privacy respecting confidential law enforcement records. 

Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Soto v. City of Concord, 162

F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995). When assessing the confidentiality of such records court utilize a

“case by case balancing analysis, in which the interests of the party seeking discovery are

weighed against the interest of the governmental entity asserting the privilege.” Kelly, 114

F.R.D. at 661. If an individual’s privacy is at stake, courts balance “the need for the

information sought against the privacy right asserted.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. However, “a

carefully drafted protective order could minimize the impact” of disclosure. Id. 

For official information privilege, this court uses the Kelly five prong standard. A party

seeking non-disclosure must submit an affidavit from an agency official which includes the

following: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the material in issue and has

maintained its confidentiality; (2) statement that the official has personally reviewed the

material; (3) specific identification of the governmental or privacy interests 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 still create a substantial risk of harm to

Case 5:06-cv-06331-JW Document 57 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

significant governmental or privacy interests; and finally, (5) a projection of how much harm

would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure were made. Id. at 670. If the

defendant’s submissions are insufficient, then the court will order disclosure of the documents.

Id. at 671. 

III. DISCUSSION

The court's biggest concern with production of the materials in question is that the

documented investigation did not involve complaints lodged by or directly concerning Sanchez. 

However, the investigation does include some information relevant to her claims. For instance,

Plaintiff's name is mentioned throughout the report - including witness descriptions of the

alleged baton contact with Plaintiff. Furthermore, the investigation certainly pertains to the

police encounter with Plaintiff's group of friends and identifies many of the officers who

interacted with the group. It is within this context that the court considers whether the Kelly

factors have been met. 

First and Second Prongs: The Declaration of Lieutenant Phan Ngo satisfies the first two

requirements under the five prong test. [Docket No. 27, ¶¶ 3 and 4]. 

Third Prong: Defendants' showing under the third requirement, dealing with

specification of the interests threatened by disclosure, is underwhelming. They first argue that

the privacy interests of the particular police officers are implicated by disclosure - particularly

when the statements were compelled by superiors and were related to an investigation about an

individual other than Sanchez. However, when documents are related to the officers' work with

the police department, then the right to privacy does not apply. See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616

(suggesting that internal investigation files are not protected by right of privacy when

documents “related simply to the officers’ work as police officers”) (citing Denver Policemen’s

Protective Ass’n v. Lichtenstein, 660 F.2d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1981)). But, the court will still

scrutinize the documents to ensure that they are relevant to Plaintiff's claims and that they do

not unnecessarily disclose information about officers who are not directly involved in the

encounter. 

Case 5:06-cv-06331-JW Document 57 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3 Under this requirement, Defendants were to project how much harm would be done

to the threatened interests if disclosure is permitted. However, Defendants do not so much

project the amount of harm, as they do restate it. 

4

Defendants also argue that the conclusions of the IAU officers should not be permitted

because disclosure will discourage exhaustive investigations and candid analysis. But there is

no support for this argument and in the past, courts have struck down such reasoning. See

Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 672 and Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613-14. There is no reason to depart from that

logic here. 

Finally, Defendants claim that disclosure of statements from members of the public

should not be allowed because it will discourage witnesses from coming forward with

information. Here, however, all public witness statements were voluntary statements made by

persons who were part of Plaintiff's group of friends. It appears that they came forward out of

concern for how the encounter was handled by the San Jose police. Therefore, Defendants'

concern is not applicable in this particular circumstance. 

Fourth Prong: With respect to the fourth element, Lt. Ngo claims that a carefully crafted

protective order, like the one already in place, would be insufficient because disclosure would

still discourage exhaustive investigation of incidents and because members of the public would

be less likely to come forward with information. These arguments were addressed above and

the court again finds such arguments unavailing. 

Fifth Prong: Finally, Lt. Ngo asserts the following harms will result if disclosure is

permitted:3

 disclosure of identification and personal data of officers involved, names of

witnesses, and the circumstances of the incidents. The court agrees, to some degree, with

Defendants' concern over the identification of personal information of officers. Therefore, the

court has redacted from the production documents which do not relate to Plaintiff's claims or

officers directly involved in the encounter. However as to witness names, the court will allow

production for the reasons stated under the prong three analysis. Finally, the "circumstances of

the events" are certainly relevant and shall not be withheld under an official information

privilege. 

Case 5:06-cv-06331-JW Document 57 Filed 04/08/08 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

 The stipulated protective order indicated that tape recordings would be produced

along with the documents, but none were included in Defendant's submissions. 

5

IV. ORDER

Defendant submitted documents SJ000110 through SJ000208. The court has reviewed

the materials 4

 and now orders as follows: 

1. Incident Report and Follow-up

Defendants shall produce the Incident Summary Report (SJ000110-000112), the Internal

Affairs Unit: Complete Report of Case Number I2006-0095 (SJ000129-000183) and the

Additional Complainants / Witnesses sheet (SJ000184). However, they need not produce the

Findings of IA Case I2006-0045 document (SJ000115), as it does not contain any information

directly relevant to Plaintiff's claims. 

2. Memoranda

Defendants shall produce Memoranda pertaining to investigations of particular officers

as related to the encounter. This includes the series of Memoranda dated 3/16/06, Bates

numbered SJ000201 through (and including) SJ000206, as well as the 6/30/06 Memorandum

from Lt. Nunes (SJ000119-000124). 

However, Defendants do not need to produce the following since they are not

sufficiently related to Plaintiff's claims or only serve to identify police officer witnesses. 

SJ000113 - SJ000114: 11/6/06 Memorandum; 10/4/06 Memorandum

SJ000116: 9/20/06 Memorandum

SJ000117-000118: 7/17/06 Memorandum

SJ000128: 6/15/06 Memorandum

SJ000207 - SJ000208: 3/16/06 Memoranda

3. Internal Affairs Unit Interview Processing Forms

 Documents SJ000125 and SJ000185-SJ000200 do not include any information relevant

to Plaintiff's claims and need not be produced by Defendants. 

Case 5:06-cv-06331-JW Document 57 Filed 04/08/08 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

4. San Jose Police Force Policy

The "Use of Force General Provisions" document (SJ000126-000127) is relevant to

Plaintiff's claims and Defendants do not carry their burden for non-disclosure under Kelly. 

Therefore, it shall also be produced. 

Given the time sensitivities for the briefing of the two pending motions and since the

burden of production is minimal, the materials shall be produced, as set forth above, by the

end of the business day on April 10, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4/8/08

Case 5:06-cv-06331-JW Document 57 Filed 04/08/08 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Michael J. Dodson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Matt Gonzalez mgonzalez@gonzalezleigh.com, linglis@gonzalezleigh.com 

Brian C. Hopper cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Gilbert Whitney Leigh wleigh@gonzalezleigh.com, bbrazier@gonzalezleigh.com,

gmiranda@gonzalezleigh.com, lrivers@gonzalezleigh.com,

mspringman@gonzalezleigh.com 

Juan Enrique Pearce epearce@pearcelawoffices.com, judyb@pearcelawoffices.com 

Nkia Desiree Richardson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Bryan W Vereschagin bvereschagin@gonzalezleigh.com, gmiranda@gonzalezleigh.com,

lrivers@gonzalezleigh.com, malberto@gonzalezleigh.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed

up for e-filing.

Dated: 4/8/08 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-06331-JW Document 57 Filed 04/08/08 Page 7 of 7