Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02170-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

THE ESTATE OF BERNARD

VICTORIANNE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, WILLIAM GORE,

LESLEE HALL, AND DOES 1-50,

Defendants 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14cv2170-WQH(BLM)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY

MOTION

[ECF No. 58]

On February 26, 2015, Julia Yoo, counsel for Plaintiffs, and Ricky R. Sanchez, counsel for

Defendants, contacted the Court’s chambers regarding a discovery dispute. ECF. No. 49. 

Counsel informed the Court’s chambers that Defendants objected to the production of a number

of documents based on the "official information" privilege. Id. at 1. 

On February 27, 2015, the Court ordered a special briefing schedule for the discovery

dispute and pursuant to the Court's order, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Conference

Statement on March 20, 2015. ECF Nos. 49 and 58. Also on March 20, 2015, Defendants

delivered the disputed documents to the Court's chambers for in camera review. 

The Court has reviewed in camera all of the documents submitted by the parties. For the

reasons detailed below, Plaintiffs' request for documents is GRANTED.

14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 11
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

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiff initiated the instant matter by filing a complaint alleging 

(1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; (2) wrongful death, (3) right of association,

(4) failure to properly train, (5) failure to properly supervise and discipline, (6) failure to properly

investigate, and (7) Monell municipal liability civil rights action. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed an

answer on October 14, 2014. ECF No. 6. 

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding Leslee Hall as a

Defendant and alleging (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; (2) wrongful death,

(3) right of association, (4) failure to properly train, (5) failure to properly supervise and

discipline, (6) failure to properly investigate, (7) Monell municipal liability civil rights action, (8)

wrongful death, (9) negligence, and (10) California Civil Code § 52.1. ECF No. 39 ("FAC"). 

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that decedent Bernard Victorianne was arrested for driving under the

influence on September 12, 2012 and that the jail staff - who knew that Mr. Victorianne had

ingested drugs prior to being booked - failed to provide Mr. Victorianne with medical care. FAC

at 2. Plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Victorianne should have been housed in the medical

observation unit where he would have been monitored instead of being placed in solitary

confinement. Id. Plaintiffs highlight the fact that a deputy incorrectly reported that he had

personally observed Mr. Victorianne's well-being on the evening of September 18, 2012. Id.

Plaintiffs state that on September 19, 2012, Mr. Victorianne failed to retrieve his breakfast and

when a deputy checked on him, Mr. Victorianne was found lying face down and naked on the

floor. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that the deputies only spent 41 seconds in Mr. Victorianne's

cell, which violated Defendants' policy requiring confirmation from Mr. Victorianne that he was

okay. Id. Plaintiffs claim that no one checked on Mr. Victorianne for approximately three more

hours and that he was later found dead, with rigor mortis already setting in. Id. Plaintiffs claim

that the evidence shows that at least one deputy lied during the investigation into Mr.

Victorianne's death and that no homicide investigators interviewed or took reports from the last

two deputies to see Mr. Victorianne alive. Id. Plaintiffs, Mr. Victorianne's parents, allege they

learned about the facts of Mr. Victorianne's case from the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review

2 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 11
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

Board’s ("CLERB") findings and recommendations nearly two years after his death as "the

Sheriff's Department failed to let [Mr. Victorianne's] parents know the circumstances surrounding

his death." Id. at 3.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12 (b)(6). ECF No. 15. That same day, Plaintiffs

filed a motion to amend the complaint. ECF No. 18. The Court held a telephonic, attorneys-only

Early Neutral Evaluation Conference ("ENE") on November 20, 2014. Id. at 21. After the ENE,

the Court issued an Order Directing Rule 26 Compliance and Setting Case Management

Conference ("CMC"). ECF No. 22. The Court held a telephonic CMC on December 17, 2014 and

issued a Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial

Proceedings that same day. ECF Nos. 30 & 31. On January 30, 2015, the Court issued an order

granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and denying as moot, Defendants' motion to

dismiss the complaint. ECF No. 36.

On February 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike portions of the

FAC. ECF No. 42. On February 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Motion to Amend the

Scheduling Order. ECF No. 47. Plaintiffs sought to continue the deadline to amend the pleadings

or file additional pleadings from February 27, 2015 to seven days after this Court issues an order

on the instant discovery dispute. ECF No. 47. The motion was granted the next day. ECF No.

48. On March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to hold Defendants' motion to dismiss

and to strike "in abeyance pending resolution of the parties' discovery dispute and the filing of

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint." ECF No. 50 at 2. That motion is still pending. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The federal rules generally allow for broad discovery authorizing parties to obtain

discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any

party, and "[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject

matter involved in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). To the extent that the discovery sought

is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is

3 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 11
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

more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive," the court is directed to limit the scope

of the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). Limits should also be imposed where the burden or

expense outweighs the likely benefits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). How and when to so limit

discovery, however, remains in the court's discretion. 

Federal common law recognizes a "qualified privilege for official information." Sanchez

v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 511 F.2d

192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976)). The party asserting the privilege has the

burden of proving the privilege. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 662 (N.D. Cal. 1987);

see also Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 231 (S.D. Cal. 1993) (“Through this

opinion, this court is hereby joining the Northern District’s and Central District’s procedures

outlined in Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) and Miller v. Pancucci, 141

F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992) for invoking the official information privilege”); Stewart v. City of San

Diego, 2010 WL 4909630, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (applying Kelly). To determine whether the

privilege applies in a particular case, "courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure

against the potential disadvantages." Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034. The Kelly court provided

a non-exhaustive list of factors (taken from Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa.

1973)) that may be considered when engaging in this weighing process: (1) the extent to which

disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the

government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having

their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which government self-evaluation and consequent

program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual

data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential

defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the

incident in question; (6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any

intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8)

whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the information

sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; and (10) the importance of

the information sought to the plaintiff's case. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 663. 

4 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 11
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

In making this determination, courts must conduct "a situation specific analysis of the

factors made relevant by the request in issue and the objection to it." Id. In civil rights cases

against police departments, the balancing test should be "moderately pre-weighted in favor of

disclosure." Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Kelly, 114

F.R.D. at 661). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to compel production of the majority of the documents listed in Defendants'

privilege log [see ECF No. 57]. ECF No. 58 at 6-7. In support, Plaintiffs argue that the requested

information is relevant to the litigation. Id. at 8. Specifically, Plaintiffs explain that they have

no information available to them regarding the identities of various people who (1) observed Mr.

Victorianne prior to his death, (2) authorized the his placement in Administrative Segregation,

(3) failed to perform an inmate night count, (4) failed to verify inmate breathing, (5) failed to

truthfully complete the Sheriff's Employee Response Form, (6) observed the mental condition of

Mr. Victorianne on September 18, 2012, (7) observed Mr. Victorianne's interactions with deputies

on September 18th and 19th, 2012, and (8) decided what and how information would be

provided to Mr. Victorianne's family regarding his death. Id. Plaintiffs also argue that they will

be substantially harmed if the requested information is not disclosed as there is no alternative

means of obtaining the information. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs note that since there was no

investigation by the Homicide Division, the Internal Affairs ("IA") and CLERB files are the only

source of the information and the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Id. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to the San Diego

Sheriff's Detention Policies and Procedures which they believe were violated and, are therefore,

"relevant and critical" to Plaintiffs' case. Id. at 10. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants should

produce the audio recordings, statements, and Sheriff's Employee Response Forms of the

deputies who allegedly denied care to Mr. Victorianne. Id. In further support, Plaintiffs argue

that Defendants fail to meet the burden required to show that the requested discovery should

be denied under other privileges or objections. Id. Plaintiffs contend that the governmental

privilege does not preclude discovery and that the production of the requested documents under

5 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 11
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

a protective order with redactions of certain personal information will not "disrupt the operations

of the San Diego Sheriff's Department." Id. at 11. Plaintiffs further contend that privacy under

that California state law and constitution is not controlling here and that the "[n]eed for the

[d]iscovery [o]utweighs any [p]otential [p]rivacy [r]ights under the Federal Privacy Act." Id. at

12-13. Because Mr. Victorianne himself cannot testify as to what occurred and because the only

source of information regarding the deputies involved is contained in the IA and CLERB files, the

discovery being sought is critical to Plaintiffs' case. Id. at 13.

Defendants do not challenge the relevancy of the withheld documents and merely state

that the requested documents cannot be released without a court order. Id. at 15-17. Initially,

Defendants explain that they already have produced to Plaintiffs some "documentation generated

by the Homicide Division's portion of the investigation" and all other requested documents

"excepting Internal Affairs and CLERB documents." Id. at 15. Defendants state that they

provided Plaintiffs with an appropriate privilege log, notified Plaintiffs of the bases on which they

are withholding documents, and advised Plaintiffs that non-defendant deputies have not

consented to the release of documents involving them so the documents cannot be produced. 

Id. at 15-16. Finally, Defendants acknowledge the requirements of the official information

privilege and conclude "that an official information privilege analysis would weigh in favor of

disclosure," but contend that pursuant to California Penal Code, they are unable to release the

requested documents absent a court order and that if disclosure is ordered, it should only be

permitted pursuant to a protective order. Id. at 17. Defendants do not object to producing

Detention Policies I.43, I.43C.1, I.64, and M.5. Id.

A. Analysis/Documents Reviewed

Before the Court undertakes an in camera review of the lodged documents and conducts

a balancing of interests, Defendants must make a substantial threshold showing in order to

invoke the official information privilege. See ECF No. 49 at 3; see also Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613;

Hampton 147 F.R.D. at 231; and Dowell v. Griffin, 275 F.R.D. 613, *616 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17,

2011). To meet this showing, Defendants “must submit a declaration or affidavit from a

responsible official with personal knowledge of the matters to be attested to in the affidavit.”

6 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 6 of 11
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

Dowel, 275 F.R.D. at *616 (quoting Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613). Specifically, “[i]n order to fulfill

the threshold requirement, the party asserting the privilege must submit a declaration or affidavit

from a responsible official with personal knowledge of the matters to be attested to in the

affidavit. The affidavit must include: (1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected

the material in issue and 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 plaintiff and/or his

lawyer; (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 interests if disclosure were

made.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 670).

Here, Defendants have failed to meet the threshold burden because they have not

included elements four or five in their affidavit. See ECF No. 58-2 ("Decl. of Christine Harvel").

The affiant does not explain why a protective order would be insufficient to protect significant

governmental or privacy interest, or project how much harm would be done to the threatened

interests if disclosure were made. Id. Since Defendants have not met their burden, the Court

is not required to conduct an in camera review and may require production of the requested

documents. Nevertheless, the Court has performed an in camera review of the requested

documents and determines that all of the requested documents and materials relate directly to

the conduct at issue in this litigation. The Court must next consider whether the asserted

privileges prevent the production of the relevant information.

Initially, the Court notes that Defendants have failed to adequately explain how disclosure

of the relevant files would harm a significant government or privacy interest with the

employment of a protective order and appropriate redactions. Decl. of Christine Harvel. In fact,

Ms. Harvel states that if the requested documents are released, "the Court should fashion a

protective order to preclude any disclosure or dissemination of any records, documents, or

information ordered disclosed for any purpose other than the express and specific purpose for

which the Court has ordered such disclosure." Id. at 5. With respect to the governmental or

7 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 7 of 11
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

privacy interest at stake, Ms. Harvel's declaration merely states that the worthwhile objectives

of constructive or negative criticism necessary to evaluating people's performances 

are not served when deputies' confidential records can be used for purposes

outside their intended purpose and scope. Consistency and confidence in the

Department's internal affairs process enhances critical and candid assessments and

is vital to deputies, their superiors and the public.

Indiscriminate disclosure and uncontrolled dissemination of confidential records

kept by the Sheriff’s Department can potentially discourage those persons who

may provide information, diminish the confidentiality of others who have provided

information to the Department, disrupt the vital, day to day operations of the

department; divert department personnel from their regular duties; erode the

integrity and security of such records; affect morale of many departmental

employees; consume inordinate time, expense and resources.

Id. at 4. However, Defendants fail to provide any support for this assertion and, in fact, courts

have rejected the theory. See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 612 (noting that Kelly “debunks the theory

that officers will be less truthful or forthright in expressing their opinions if there is a risk of

future disclosure” and concurring with Kelly’s reasoning) (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 665-666)1

;

see also Watson v. Albin, 2008 WL 1925257 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2008) (“[Defendant's] arguments

that disclosure would discourage exhaustive internal investigations are unpersuasive. Courts in

this district have previously rejected such claims, and there is no reason to depart from that

reasoning here.”) (citing Kelly, 114 F.R.D at 672). This Court agrees and finds that Defendants

have not established that disclosure in this case would harm a significant government or privacy

interest.

Additionally, a weighing of "the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential

disadvantages" and consideration of the Kelly factors strongly supports the disclosure of the

relevant documents. Sanchez, 936 F. 2d at 1034. Specifically, with regard to each Kelly factor,

the Court finds as follows:

1. Disclosure will not thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from

1

The quoted section of Kelly reads “since there is no empirical support for the contention that the possibility

of disclosure would reduce the candor of officers who contribute to internal affairs investigations, and since there are

solid reasons to believe that that possibility might have the opposite effect (improving accuracy and honesty), there

is no justification for offering near absolute protection to the statements that go into such reports or the opinions and

recommendations that conclude them. In fact ... such material should be presumptively discoverable when a plaintiff

makes a proper showing of relevance.” Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 665-666.

8 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 8 of 11
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

giving the government information because the identifying information will be

limited to the name of the reporting individual, all personal information will be

redacted as described in section B, and the records at issue contain statements

from employees and inmates at the prison where Mr. Victorianne died not from

private citizens; 

2. There will be little impact upon persons who have given information as a result of

having their identities disclosed because the Court will allow Defendants to redact

personal information as set forth in section B; 

3. There is no support for the contention that government self-evaluation or other

communications will be chilled by disclosure;

4. The fact that the information sought is both factual data and evaluative summary

does not favor either side as the data is still based on factual investigations which

are relevant and likely trustworthy2

; 

5. Defendants have not provided any evidence indicating that Plaintiffs are "actual or

potential defendant[s] in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably

likely to follow from the incident in question"; 

6. There was no police investigation, but the CLERB review has been completed3; 

7. The Internal Affairs investigation has been completed4; 

8. Defendants do not provide any evidence indicating that Plaintiffs' suit is frivolous

or has been brought in bad faith;

9. Plaintiffs have established that the information Plaintiffs seek is not available

2

See Estate of Bui v. Westminster Police Department, 244 F.R.D. 591, 596 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2007) (finding

that “The fourth Kelly factor does not conclusively weigh for or against application of the privilege. While the WPD's

IA report includes opinions, conclusions and evaluative summaries, it is still based on factual investigations. These

investigations are highly relevant and likely trustworthy given their protection against use in criminal proceedings and

the relatively immediate timing of the investigations after the incident”); see also Dowell, 275 F.R.D. at 618 (finding

that the fourth factor was not instructive because”[w]hile the report includes opinions, conclusions, and evaluative

summaries, it is still based on factual investigations. As articulated in Kelly, there is no reason to doubt the veracity

of the investigating officers any more than there is to doubt the veracity of the witnesses).

3

See CSDP0000238-241.

4

See CSDP000055-71, 73-102, 278.

9 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 9 of 11
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

through other discovery means or from other sources and Defendants have not

countered this showing; and

10. The information being sought is extremely important to Plaintiffs' case. 

Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 663. Because all of the Kelly factors either favor disclosure or are neutral,

the Court finds that the potential benefits of disclosure greatly outweigh the potential

disadvantages and disclosure is warranted.

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to produce the documents identified by Plaintiffs

in the Joint Discovery Motion [see ECF No. 58 at 6-7] as well as the audio recordings and

statements of the deputies at issue, subject to the stipulated protective order which will be filed

along with this Order. 

B. Redaction

Defendants seek to redact “all personal information regarding the deputy, spouse and

children, such as their social security, driver’s license number, address, etc.” Decl. of Christine

Harvel at 5. The Court GRANTS Defendants' request to redact all personal information

regarding the Deputy including: spouse and children names, date of birth, social security

numbers, medical records, driver’s license numbers, vehicle license plate numbers, telephone

numbers, and addresses. Defendants are ordered to also redact the personal information of any 

witnesses. 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs' request for documents and the audio recordings and statements of the deputies

at issue is GRANTED as follows: 

1. Within in ten (10) days of the date this Order is filed, Defendants shall produce all

requested documents to Plaintiffs, subject to the stipulated protective order which will be filed

along with this Order with the following redactions: personal information of Deputies and

witnesses including: spouse and children names, date of birth, social security numbers, medical

records, driver’s license numbers, vehicle license plate numbers, telephone numbers, and

addresses, but not the names of witnesses and officers.

2. Within five (5) days of the date this Order is filed, Defendants shall retrieve from

10 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 10 of 11
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

the Court's chambers all documents submitted for in camera review. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2015

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

11 14CV2170-WQH(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-02170-WQH-BLM Document 67 Filed 04/17/15 Page 11 of 11