Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01071/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01071-9/pdf.json

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

---

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

07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE KASSAB,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, a

municipal corporation, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

ORDER ON PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING IN

CAMERA REVIEW

I.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for pretrial discovery or, in the alternative, for

an in camera inspection of documents. [Doc. 50-2, 2:16-24.] After receiving a brief extension,

Defendants filed an opposition on June 19, 2008. [Doc. Nos. 55, 56 and 57.] Plaintiff filed a

reply in support of his motion on June 24, 2008. [Doc. No. 58.] On July 3, 2008, the Court

issued an Order granting in part and denying part Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and directing

the parties to meet and confer as well as lodge with Judge McCurine’s chambers a revised

privilege log and a copy of the disputed documents for in camera review. [Doc. No. 59.] The

privilege log and disputed documents were lodged with Judge McCurine’s chambers on August

15, 2008. The Court has completed its in camera review and issues the following order. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 78 Filed 09/19/08 Page 1 of 7
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 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

II.

IN CAMERA REVIEW

As noted above, Defendants have submitted for in camera review general personnel and

training files as well as Internal Affairs files concerning the arrest of Plaintiff on July 13, 2006,

one of two arrests which form the basis of the claims in Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

A. Internal Affairs Records Concerning Investigations Into Citizen Complaints Made

By Plaintiff Are Not Protected From Disclosure By Official Information Privilege

“Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.” Miller v.

Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The personnel files of government employees

have been considered official information for purposes of the common law privilege. Sanchez v.

City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990.) Courts engage in a balancing test to

determine whether personnel files are privileged and thereby protected from disclosure. Miller,

141 F.R.D. at 300. Specifically, “courts must weigh potential benefits of disclosure against

potential disadvantages; if the latter is greater, the official information privilege may bar

discovery.” Id. The balancing test is pre-weighted in favor of disclosure. Kelly v. City of San

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D. Cal. 1987.)

In order to properly invoke the privilege and trigger the Court’s consideration of the

materials at issue, the party opposing disclosure must make a substantial threshold showing by

submitting a declaration from a responsible official with personal knowledge of the police

department’s internal investigatory system. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613

(N.D. Cal. 1995.) (citing Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 670.) Defendants have met the threshold by

submitting the declaration of David Ramirez, the Executive Assistant Chief of Police for the San

Diego Police Department. Chief Ramirez is responsible for the oversight and administration of

the Internal Affairs Unit. [See Ramirez Decl., 1:21-25.] 

The Court has reviewed in camera the documents lodged by Defendants and finds that in

this case, which concerns allegations of discrimination, retaliation, false arrest and excessive

force, the benefits of providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to review relevant internal affairs

investigations into the officers’ conduct with respect to the July 13, 2006 arrest, as well as other

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 78 Filed 09/19/08 Page 2 of 7
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 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

interactions with Kassab, outweigh the Police Department’s interest in maintaining the

confidentiality of the Internal Affairs records at issue. Indeed, confidentiality is not a significant

factor in the Court’s balancing exercise in this case because the internal affairs files at issue were

created in response to citizen complaint forms submitted by Plaintiff himself. Moreover,

Defendants’ interests are especially outweighed in light of the federal courts’ pre-weighting in

favor of disclosure and this Court’s determination that disclosure will occur pursuant to

protective order as explained below. Accordingly, the following internal affairs documents shall

be produced:

CM-IA-00002

CM-IA-00006 to CM-IA-00008

CM-IA-00011 to CM-IA-00015

CM-IA-00018 to CM-IA-00019

CM-IA-00027 to CM-IA-00036

CM-IA-00040 to CM-IA-00054

CM-IA-00056 to CM-IA-00057

CM-IA-00061 to CM-IA-00066

CM-IA-00208 to CM-IA-00251

CM-IA-00254 to CM-IA-00266

CM-IA-00274 to CM-IA-00293

CM-IA-00295 to CM-IA-00318

CM-IA-00341 to CM-IA-00343

CM-IA-00357 to CM-IA-00362

CM-IA-00365 to CM-IA-00369

CM-IA-00372 to CM-IA-00373

CM-IA-003765 to CM-IA-00376

CM-IA-00380 to CM-IA-00381 

RH-SS-IA-00007 to RH-SS-IA-00051

RH-SS-IA-00055 to RH-SS-IA-00057

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 78 Filed 09/19/08 Page 3 of 7
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 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

RH-SS-IA-00060 to RH-SS-IA-00063

RH-SS-IA-00067 to RH-SS-IA-00070

RH-SS-IA-00076 to RH-SS-IA-00085

RH-SS-IA-00089 to RH-SS-IA-00101

RH-SS-IA-00103 to RH-SS-IA-00104

RH-SS-IA-00106 to RH-SS-IA-00108

RH-SS-IA-00110

RH-SS-IA-00113 to RH-SS-IA-00124

RH-SS-IA-00133 to RH-SS-IA-00175

 RH-SS-IA-00214 to RH-SS-IA-00219

RH-SS-IA-00222 to RH-SS-IA-00226

RH-SS-IA-00228 to RH-SS-IA-00229

RH-SS-IA-00231 to RH-SS-IA-00232

RH-SS-IA-00236 to RH-SS-IA-00239

B. Officer Training Certificates Are Relevant And Shall Be Produced

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery of material that is

(1) “not privileged” and (2) “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.” Id. 

A relevant matter is “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other

matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162

F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,

351 (1978).) Items typically found in personnel files, such as records concerning training and

performance, have been held to be relevant on the issues of credibility, notice to the employer,

ratification by the employer, motive of the officers and malicious intent. See Soto v. City of

Concord, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (citing Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 229 (S.D.

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 78 Filed 09/19/08 Page 4 of 7
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

5 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

Cal. 1993).) Accordingly, all documents identified in Defendant’s privilege logs as “Training

Certificate”, “Certificate of Completion” or “Certificate of Training” shall be produced in full.

C. General Personnel Files Are Protected By A Right of Privacy

Federal courts generally recognize a right of privacy that can be raised in response to

discovery requests. Johnson ex rel Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 1992)

(denying discovery of names of participants in a medical study due to privacy interests of the

individual participants). The party whose privacy is affected may object or seek a protective

order. Laxalt v. McClatchy, 809 F.2d 885, 889 (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. Cook v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D.

548, 550-551 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (balancing targeted individual’s right of privacy against public’s

need for discovery in employment discrimination case.) With respect to the disclosure of police

files, courts have recognized that privacy rights are not inconsequential. Kelly v. City of San

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 650 (N.D. Cal. 1987). 

In the instant civil rights action, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for false arrest and

imprisonment, assault, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and use of

excessive force arising out two separate arrests of Plaintiff on July 13, 2006 and on December

19, 2007. [See Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint “FAC” 8:24-9:3, 14:18-15:8.] After an in

camera review of the files, the Court determines that the majority of the police officers’

personnel files are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (establishing

discoverable nature of matter that is relevant and not privileged.) Moreover, Plaintiff has no

need for the sensitive personal information commonly found in personnel files such as home

address, telephone number, social security number, emergency contact information, and salary

history. Accordingly, the officer personnel files in their entirety are not discoverable. The Court

notes that training certificates, which are a subset of the officers’ broad personnel files, have

already been found by the Court to be discoverable and shall be produced in full. (See Section II

(B) supra.)

///

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 78 Filed 09/19/08 Page 5 of 7
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 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

III.

DISCLOSURE SHALL OCCUR SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Courts have fulfilled a plaintiff’s need for discovery while protecting a defendant’s

privacy by ordering the production of documents subject to a protective order limiting the access

to the material at issue to plaintiff, his counsel and those experts who require such information to

formulate an opinion. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995.) Defendant

has requested a narrowly-tailored protective order should the Court order the production of

documents. (See Ramirez Decl., 5:10-15.)

The Court finds that a protective order will serve the interests of both parties in

facilitating discovery and yet protecting the privacy of the parties involved. Therefore, the Court

orders the parties to enter into a protective order governing the documents the Court has ordered

to be disclosed. The parties shall finalize said protective order no later than October 6, 2008. 

Service of the documents ordered disclosed shall occur within ten (10) calendar days after the

Court signs the protective order. All documents produced must be bates-stamped. Every page of

every document must have a number.

IV.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the Court’s findings expressed above, Defendants are ordered to

produce the following documents pursuant to protective order:

CM-IA-00002

CM-IA-00006 to CM-IA-00008

CM-IA-00011 to CM-IA-00015

CM-IA-00018 to CM-IA-00019

CM-IA-00027 to CM-IA-00036

CM-IA-00040 to CM-IA-00054

CM-IA-00056 to CM-IA-00057

CM-IA-00061 to CM-IA-00066

CM-IA-00208 to CM-IA-00251

CM-IA-00254 to CM-IA-00266

CM-IA-00274 to CM-IA-00293

CM-IA-00295 to CM-IA-00318

CM-IA-00341 to CM-IA-00343

CM-IA-00357 to CM-IA-00362

CM-IA-00365 to CM-IA-00369

CM-IA-00372 to CM-IA-00373

CM-IA-003765 to CM-IA-00376

CM-IA-00380 to CM-IA-00381 

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 78 Filed 09/19/08 Page 6 of 7
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 07cv1071 WQH (WMc)

RH-SS-IA-00007 to RH-SS-IA-00051

RH-SS-IA-00055 to RH-SS-IA-00057

RH-SS-IA-00060 to RH-SS-IA-00063

RH-SS-IA-00067 to RH-SS-IA-00070

RH-SS-IA-00076 to RH-SS-IA-00085

RH-SS-IA-00089 to RH-SS-IA-00101

RH-SS-IA-00103 to RH-SS-IA-00104

RH-SS-IA-00106 to RH-SS-IA-00108

RH-SS-IA-00110

RH-SS-IA-00113 to RH-SS-IA-00124

RH-SS-IA-00133 to RH-SS-IA-00175

 RH-SS-IA-00214 to RH-SS-IA-00219

RH-SS-IA-00222 to RH-SS-IA-00226

RH-SS-IA-00228 to RH-SS-IA-00229

RH-SS-IA-00231 to RH-SS-IA-00232

RH-SS-IA-00236 to RH-SS-IA-00239

and;

all documents identified in Defendant’s privilege logs as “Training Certificate”,

“Certificate of Completion” or “Certificate of Training”.

The parties shall finalize a protective order no later than October 6, 2008. Service of

the documents ordered disclosed shall occur within ten (10) calendar days after the Court signs

the protective order.

It is further ordered that the telephonic Discovery Conference presently set for

September 23, 2008 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2008

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

COPY TO:

HON. WILLIAM Q. HAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PLAINTIFF PRO SE IN CASE NO. 07-CV-1071

ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 3:07-cv-01071-BAS-JLB Document 78 Filed 09/19/08 Page 7 of 7