Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-29/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO M. GARCIA, Jr.

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MATTHEW M. JUAREZ, Jr.,

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL 

PRODUCTION BY THE CDCR OF 

DOCUMENTS WITHHELD PURSUANT 

TO THE “OFFICIAL INFORMATION 

PRIVILEGE”

Roberto M. Garcia Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, although Plaintiff has been 

appointed counsel for purposes of this motion to compel. (Doc. 76) Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint commencing this action on May 8, 2012. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the 

First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14, 2013, against defendant Sergeant Matthew M. 

Juarez, Jr. (“Defendant”) for excessive force. 

On July 7, 2016, this Court ordered the CDCR to produce certain documents withheld 

pursuant to the Official Information Privilege. (Doc. 83). The Court noted in that order that 

some documents were missing from the disclosure to the Court—specifically the underlying

interviews that were summarized in various reports. (Doc. 83, at p. 12).

Per the Court’s order, on July 25, 2016, the CDCR delivered two CDs to the Court for 

supplemental in camera review. Those CDs contained a video interview of the Plaintiff a well 

as numerous audio recordings of other interviews.

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 96 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior order, the Court holds that the witness 

interviews are not protected by the Official Information Privilege.1The Court has performed a 

balancing test and finds that the interests of disclosure outweigh the interests of any legitimate 

security interest of the CDCR in withholding the information. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 14 days from this order, the CDCR shall provide Plaintiff with all documents 

withheld under the official information privilege and provided in camera to the 

Court in its July 25, 2016 submission. 

2. To the extent that Plaintiff’s confinement prevents him from viewing or listening to 

such evidence, the CDCR shall make available a mechanism for Plaintiff to review 

such evidence consistent with the CDCR’s security measures within 30 days from 

delivery to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court is particularly troubled by the CDCR’s withholding of the Plaintiff’s 

own interview and cannot find any colorable basis for the CDCR’s invocation of the Official 

Information Privilege as a basis to withhold that interview from the Plaintiff in this case.

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 96 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 2