Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00750-24/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 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 and for an upcoming settlement 

conference. (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. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, on May 23, 2011, Defendant Juarez kicked him with extreme 

force, pulled Plaintiff’s arm behind his back, which injured Plaintiff’s shoulder, and used 

profane and hostile statements. (Doc. 11, at 5). 

Following the incident, the Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation of the 

incident. Defendant, and later the prison, withheld all documents at all associated with that

investigation on the basis of the official information privilege. After much litigation, the Court 

required the prison to provide the documents from that investigation for review in camera. As 

described below, those documents are composed of reports and interviews from percipient 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 16
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

witnesses about the underlying event, as well as the conclusions of the Office of Internal 

Affairs. 

Recognizing the importance of security issues concerning the prison, the Court has 

performed an exhaustive examination of the law regarding the official information privilege 

and evaluated the documents consistent with the courts’ guidance. The Court finds that, with 

limited exception, the documents should be produced to Plaintiff because the importance of 

those documents to the Plaintiff’s case and truthfinding in this matter outweighs the asserted 

security interests. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff first requested a “copy of the report of the investigation conducted by Internal 

Affairs Agent M. Dunlop concerning Defendant’s misconduct” on December 28, 2014. (Doc. 

41, p.13). Defendant Juarez objected to that request on multiple grounds including 

“irrelevant,” but ultimately stated that Defendant did not have possession of the requested 

document. (Doc. 41, p.24).

On July 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for non-party discovery requesting documents 

and information “concerning the investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs on 

this matter . . . .” (Doc. 44, p. 4) Defendant Juarez again objected on grounds including that 

they included Peace Officer personnel files that implicated the Officer’s privacy interests and 

“should not be ordered produced except upon a compelling showing of relevance,” because 

“[t]here is typically private information in personnel records . . . .” (Doc 45, p.3). Defendant 

Juarez also referred to California Evidence Code section 1040, which is a California law 

allowing a public entity to refuse to disclose official information acquired in confidence by a 

public employee if “there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information 

that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1040. 

That Evidence Code section also provides that “In determining whether disclosure of the 

information is against the public interest, the interest of the public entity as a party in the 

outcome of the proceeding may not be considered.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1040. Defendant Juarez 

supported his argument stating “The CDCR has a very real concern that the release of the 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 2 of 16
3

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

confidential records could endanger the health and safety of the individuals to whom the 

records pertain” and “could precipitate such acts of violence and lead to the death of or serious 

bodily injury to inmantes, personnel of the CDCR, and even third parties outside the CDCR 

facilities, especially in the context of gang-affiliated matters.” (Doc 45, p.3-4). Defendant also 

stated that “The requested documents may include descriptions of law enforcement tactics and 

investigative information and techniques.” (Doc. 45, p. 4). Finally, Defendant argued that the 

documents were protected under privacy rights, which cover information such as the “social 

security number, physical description, home adddress, and home telephone number.” (Doc. 45, 

p. 5). 

This Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to issue the subpoena on November 17, 2015. 

(Doc. 51). Pursuant to a separate request by Plaintiff, the Court also issued a subpoena on the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) on December 8, 2015. 

(Doc. 55).

On February 26, 2016, the CDCR filed a motion to quash the subpoena for failure to 

provide a reasonable time to reply. (Doc. 60). The Court granted the motion to quash in part, 

providing additional time to respond to the subpoena. (Doc. 62).

On April 1, 2016, the CDCR filed a “Notice of Compliance” with the order, stating that 

“On April 1, 2016, the CDCR responded to the subpoena in compliance with the Court’s 

order.” (Doc. 65). 

The Court held a status conference on April 26, 2016, and learned the the CDCR had 

not produced any documents in response to the subpoena except those in Plaintiff’s C-file, and 

otherwise had withheld all responsive documents as privileged. (Doc. 71, p. 3). The Court 

gave Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel. (Doc. 71, p.3) The Court also appointed 

counsel for Plaintiff for the limited purposes of assisting Plaintiff to bring a motion to compel 

responses and documents from the CDCR that the CDCR has claimed are privileged, as well as 

assisting Plaintiff with preparing for and participating in a settlement conference. (Doc. 76). 

\\\

\\\

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 3 of 16
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

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery from the CDCR on May 23, 2016. (Doc. 

74). It argued that the documents being withheld were not privileged under the law, and it 

attached the privilege log from the CDCR. Along with that privilege log, the CDCR also 

included a Declaration in Support of the Privilege, which represented the following regarding 

the Investigation files: 

I have reviewed the document identified as three in the privilege log. This 

document is confidential. The report was prepared by a special agent in the 

Office of Internal Affairs as part of his duty to investigate allegations of 

excessive force. The document contains statements made by four inmate 

witnesses who provided the information with the understanding that it would 

remain confidential. Release of the document could jeopardize their safety and 

inhibit other inmates from providing truthful accounts in future investigations. 

Further, the document contains information concerning law enforcement 

techniques that, if released, would threaten institutional security. Finally, the 

report contains confidential personnel information concerning a correctional 

officer. (Doc. 74, p.14). 

The CDCR opposed the motion to compel, on the basis of information provided in the 

declaration, and requested in camera review of the documents. (Doc. 78). The Court ordered 

delivery of the withheld documents in camera. (Doc. 81). CDCR delivered the documents on 

June 30, 2016.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

The 9th Circuit has rarely and only briefly discussed the official information privilege. 

The 9th Circuit case most frequently cited for the privilege is Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 

the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd 426 U.S. 394 (1976). In Kerr, the 9th

Circuit examined the government’s claim of the official information privilege as a basis to 

withhold documents sought under the Freedom of Information Act. The court ultimately let 

stand a district court order requiring production of personnel files from members and executive 

personnel of the California Adult Authority, over the government’s privilege objection. The 

Court rested its decision primarily on the government’s use of a blanket objection rather than a

specific privilege claim as to a particular document or class of documents. In doing so, it made 

the following comments about the contours of the privilege:

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 4 of 16
5

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

Petitioners further argue, however, that established principles of California law 

and federal law create an absolute or qualified privilege for the personnel files . . 

. .

The claim of privilege under California law is based upon California Evidence 

Code s 1040, and California Government Code §§ 6250—6260 and 6254(f) 

(Supp. 1974). However, the civil rights action was instituted in federal court 

under a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was enacted particularly to 

vindicate federal rights against deprivation by state action. . . . In federal 

question cases the clear weight of authority and logic supports reference to 

federal law on the issue of the existence and scope of an asserted privilege. . . .

Petitioners also contend that the common law governmental privilege 

(encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official or state secret privilege) 

covers the requested documents. 

These cases, however, indicate that this is only a qualified privilege, contingent 

upon the competing interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure 

especially where protective measures are taken, as in this case. 

Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) 

aff'd 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, the Kerr court 

made clear that (1) there is no absolute privilege for government records, (2) federal common 

law governs, (3) the official information privilege is a qualified privilege, and (4) the privilege 

depends on the competing interests of the litigant and the governmental entity. 

Given that this is a common law privilege, it is worth examining the two cases relied on 

by the 9th Circuit and cited by the government in Kerr in support of their official information 

privilege claim. In Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg, 463 F.2d 788, 

792—795 (D.C. Cir. 1971), the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s order 

compelling the government to submit documents for in camera inspection, and provided the 

following explanation of the privilege issues involved:

Documents such as those encompassed in the District Court's order would 

normally remain part of the internal files of the agencies involved in the absence 

of an appropriate demand. When such demand is made in conjunction with 

discovery sought in the courts, the settled rule is that the court must balance the 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 5 of 16
6

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

moving party's need for the documents in the litigation against the reasons which 

are asserted in defending their confidentiality.

The government's interest in confidentiality is plain where the documents make 

reference to military or diplomatic secrets. But plaintiffs indicated clearly that 

they seek no such secrets, and the District Court's order explicitly provides that 

the government is not required to produce any documents or parts of documents 

which contain such secret material.

The government may still have an interest, however, in avoiding disclosure of 

documents which reflect intra-executive advisory opinions and 

recommendations whose confidentiality contributes substantially to the 

effectiveness of government decision-making processes. In camera inspection of 

allegedly privileged documents—as ordered here by the District Court—is a 

procedure approved by the courts at least where, as here, military and diplomatic 

secrets are not at issue. Of course, the party seeking discovery must make a 

preliminary showing of necessity to warrant even in camera disclosure, but there 

is no claim on this appeal that plaintiffs have not made such a showing or that 

the District Court's order is erroneous for lack of such a showing.

Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg, 463 F.2d 788, 791-92 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

The second case that the government had relied on in Kerr was the 5th Circuit case of 

Carr v. Monroe Mfg. Co. 431 F.2d 384, 388-89 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the Court of Appeals

affirmed a district court order requiring production of records from the State Employment 

Security Commission without redacting names and addresses of applicants for employment. 

The relevant part of the Court’s analysis is as follows:

The granting or withholding of any privilege requires a balancing of competing 

policies. The claim of governmental privilege is no exception; in fact, the 

potential for misuse of government privilege, and the consequent diminution of 

information about government available to the public, is one more factor which 

strongly suggests the need for judicial arbitration of the availability of the 

privilege. That the need for discovery of communications with a state 

governmental agency arises in a federal case in no way diminishes the need for 

an independent weighing by the court of the policies behind the privilege.

Making even more compelling the need for judicial evaluation of the availability 

of the privilege is the fact that this is a suit against the highest official of the 

very government agency asserting the privilege. In such cases there is a special 

danger in the government official having the power to define the scope of his 

own privilege, free of supervision by the courts. As one pre-Reynolds court put 

it, in a similar suit:

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 6 of 16
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

“Inasmuch as * * * the alleged actionable deviation from official conduct by the 

defendants is brought in issue by the answer * * *, it is eminently appropriate 

that all relevant documents which elucidate those vital issues * * * should not be 

withheld from the court. To rule otherwise in the absence of controlling 

authority would do violence to the court’s duty to search for the truth and would 

be inimical to the traditional concept of (discovery). * * *”

We conclude by holding that to sustain the assertion of privilege of concealment 

under the specific situation before the court would be tantamount to abdicating 

an inherent judicial function of determining the facts upon which the 

admissibility of evidence in a case depends.

Carr v. Monroe Mfg. Co. 431 F.2d 384, 388-89 (5th Cir. 1970).

The 9th Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring a balancing of interests and in 

camera review in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information privilege. See, 

e.g., Seminara v. City of Long Beach, 68 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming Magistrate Judge 

order compelling disclosure and stating “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege 

for official information. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th 

Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119 (1976). In determining whether information 

sought is privileged, we must employ a balancing test, weighing the potential benefits of 

disclosure against the potential disadvantages”); Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 

818 F.2d 1515, 1519 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Defendants also contend that the sought documents are 

protected by state-created privileges. In a Title VII action, of course, the federal common law 

of privilege controls. F.R.Evid. 501. This court has held that personnel files are discoverable in 

federal question cases, including Title VII actions, despite claims of privilege.”); Breed v. U.S. 

Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“Also, as 

required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means 

of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”).

The 9th Circuit provided more direction regarding the official information privilege in 

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990), in which it affirmed a 

district judge’s denial of discovery of city police department personnel files. The Court 

explained its reasoning as follows:

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 7 of 16
8

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

Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. 

Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), 

aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Government 

personnel files are considered official information. To determine whether the 

information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of 

disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the 

privilege bars discovery. 

The relevance of plaintiffs’ discovery request for employment data is 

undisputed. Most of the relevant information, however, could have been 

developed by interrogatories. It is well-settled that an employee may prove his 

or her claim of unlawful discrimination by evidence that other employees of 

different races or national origin were treated differently in similar 

circumstances. 

Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana (9th Cir. 1990) 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34, as amended on denial of 

reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 24, 1991) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted).

Finally, although not binding on this Court, the case of Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 

F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) from the Northern District of California thoughtfully and 

thoroughly evaluated issues regarding the official information privilege in the context of police

files and has since been cited by many courts as they evaluate such privilege claims. The Kelly

court began by emphasizing the federal law governs questions of privilege in civil rights cases, 

although federal courts may look to state doctrine in order to understand state interests. Id. at 

655-56 (“At the outset it is important to emphasize that in a civil rights case brought under 

federal statutes questions of privilege are resolved by federal law. . . . It obviously would 

make no sense to permit state law to determine what evidence is discoverable in cases brought 

pursuant to federal statutes whose central purpose is to protect citizens from abuses of power 

by state and local authorities.”). Moreover, “there has been no codification of federal privilege 

law,” and many supposedly related doctrines do not appear to apply to this circumstance. Id. at 

655-56. The Court then listed the competing interests in play in privilege asserted by law 

enforcement agencies as follows: “interests of law enforcement, privacy interests of police 

officers or citizens who provide information to or file complaints against police officers, 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 8 of 16
9

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

interests of civil rights plaintiffs, the policies that inform the national civil rights laws, and the 

needs of the judicial process.” Id. at 660. The Court then reviewed various cases and 

concluded that civil rights cases should involve a balancing approach that is moderately preweighted in favor of disclosure:

In my view there are several considerations that justify adopting in these kinds 

of civil rights cases a balancing approach that is moderately pre-weighted in 

favor of disclosure. As a general proposition, the public interests in the 

categories favoring disclosure (the policies underlying our civil rights laws, 

public confidence in the court system, and doing justice in individual cases) 

clearly outweigh the public interests in favor of secrecy (e.g., not compromising 

procedures for self-discipline within police forces or the privacy rights of 

officers or citizen complainants). As I suggest below, there has been substantial 

exaggeration of the size of the harm that limited disclosure might do to 

concededly legitimate law enforcement interests. And in the relatively rare case 

where there is a very real threat to obviously important law enforcement 

interests (as there could be, for example, if a plaintiff were seeking the names of 

confidential informants in on-going criminal investigations, or wanted to learn 

operational plans for imminent police activities), the moderate pre-weighting in 

favor of disclosure will not disable courts from protecting those law 

enforcement interests.

There are additional considerations that support the conclusion that it is 

appropriate to adopt a balancing test that is moderately pre-weighted in favor of 

disclosure. Such pre-weighting is consistent with the well-established notion that 

because privileges operate in derogation of the truth finding process the law 

places the burden of proving all the elements essential to invoking any privilege 

on the party seeking its benefits. The pre-weighting also is consistent with the 

related idea that privileges generally are to be narrowly construed, and that 

doubts about their applicability are to be resolved in favor of disclosure. 

Id. at 661-62. The Court then endorsed the following list of factors worthy of consideration in 

assessing the balancing of interests:

(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.

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 9 of 16
10

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) 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.

(10) The importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case.

Id. at 663. The Court then discussed at length issues involving disclosure of reports to law 

enforcement, an issue that is particularly relevant to the documents being withheld in the case 

before this Court:

[Some] courts seem to assume that there is a greater risk that officers doing this 

work would not express their views honestly if they knew their words might be 

used against individual officers or the police department by a civil rights 

plaintiff. . . . There are at least two problems with the reasoning that supports 

this view. One is that the premise that supports it (that investigating officers will 

be less forthright in expressing their opinions if there is a risk of disclosure) is 

empirically unsupported and very debatable. The other problem with this line of 

reasoning is that after it acknowledges the great importance of enforcing federal 

civil rights policies it fails to articulate a reason for deciding to ascribe less 

weight to that enforcement effort than to the unmeasured harm to government 

interests that might follow from disclosure of evaluative material in internal 

affairs files. . . .

Since no empirical study supports the contention that the possibility of 

disclosure would make officers who participate (as respondents or as 

investigators) in internal affairs investigations less honest it is doubly important 

to examine the assumptions that underlie that contention. If we posit two 

alternatives, one in which there is no possibility of disclosure and one in which 

there is some possibility of disclosure to litigants (protective orders can be used 

to prevent disclosure to the public generally), and ask which is most conducive 

to candor, strong arguments can be advanced that it is the alternative in which 

there is some possibility of disclosure. A police officer who knows that no one 

from outside the law enforcement community will scrutinize his statements or 

his investigatory work may not feel the same level of pressure to be honest and 

accurate as would his counterpart in a system where some disclosure was 

possible. An officer might expect that someone within his organization would be 

less exacting in reviewing his statements or reports than someone from the 

outside, especially if the person from the outside already has substantial 

information about the incident under investigation and has a strong motive to 

challenge the accuracy of the officer's memory or the reliability of his 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 10 of 16
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

conclusions. We rely in our adversary system of justice on the fear of being 

challenged and exposed by an opponent to keep litigants and lawyers honest. . . .

Fear of scrutiny by knowledgeable people motivated to be aggressive is likely to 

inspire police officers to conduct investigations and write reports that are less 

vulnerable to criticism, and the way to make them less vulnerable is to make 

them more thorough, more accurate and better reasoned. In short, officers will 

feel pressure to be honest and logical when they know that their statements and 

their work product will be subject to demanding analysis by people with 

knowledge of the events under investigation and considerable incentive to make 

sure that the truth comes out (i.e., a civil rights plaintiff and her lawyer). Thus 

there is a real possibility that officers working in closed systems will feel less 

pressure to be honest than officers who know that they may be forced to defend 

what they say and report. . . .

There is even less reason to believe that the possibility of disclosure to civil 

rights plaintiffs will discourage citizens from filing complaints against police 

officers. It is not at all clear that people who feel aggrieved by actions of police 

officers would even think about the possibility that their complaints might be 

disclosed to another person who feels aggrieved by police officers. And if they 

did think about it they presumably would want their complaint to help someone 

who had suffered from a similar source. A citizen who complains about police 

misconduct simply is not in the same position as a confidential informant or a 

citizen who offers information that is potentially damaging to another citizen. 

The obvious reasons people in the latter categories have for wanting to protect 

their anonymity simply have no bearing on the behavior of citizens who file 

complaints against the police themselves. It follows that, in the absence of 

special circumstances proved by law enforcement defendants, courts should 

ascribe little weight to a police department's purported interest in preserving the 

anonymity of citizen complainants. 

Id. at 664-66.

1

III. Application of Law to Documents Being Withheld

Turning to the facts in this case, the CDCR is withholding the following documents, 

which were submitted for in camera review:

 

1

The Kelly Court goes on to describe a detailed process of invoking the privilege, 

which, although relied on by many courts, is not summarized because it is not relevant to the 

case before us. Id. at 668 et seq. 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 11 of 16
12

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

 Institutional Executive Review Committee (IERC) Use of Force Review and Further 

Action Recommendation, critique and evaluation

 Cover sheets for forwarding of certain documents, intake acceptance letter, request for 

internal investigation, notice of assignment and similar bureaucractice documents, at 

least one of which contains personal information of Defendant Juarez including his 

social security number

 Investigative Report, including summary of allegations and summary of reports by 

correctional officers about what occurred in the underlying incident, summary of appeal 

and interview of Plaintiff, summaries of four inmate interviews, summary of interviews 

from correctional staff

 Appeal findings

 Crime incident reports and staff reports

 Holding cell log

 Medical report of injury

 Citizens complaint against personnel

 Advisement of Rights

 Administrative Memorandum

Notably, it appears that some documents are missing. The report contains summaries of 

ditigal recorded interviews, but does not include the interviews themselves in any format. 

Moreover, there are cover pages for Exhibits 7-15, but no documents are included behind those 

cover pages. As set forth in the order, these documents must be produced, or submitted for 

further in camera review, forthwith. 

Overall, the withheld documents consistent of summaries of what witnesses claimed 

happened in the underlying event. (Again, the actual interviews are not included—only the 

summaries of such interviews.) They also include the results of the Office of Internal Affairs 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 12 of 16
13

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

analysis and findings based on these sources. These documents are all highly relevant. They 

are statements from percipient witnesses regarding what happened. Many of those statements 

were made at or near the time of the event. The medical reports also concern Plaintiff’s 

condition after the event, which is relevant to assessing his injuries. 

These documents do not reveal any institutional secrets. They do not discuss, for 

example, security measures within the prison or where security cameras are located within the 

institution. To the extent they reveal a procedure for investigation, it appears to be a 

completely intuitive procedure: evidence was gathered, summarized, and reported to decision 

makers for evaluation. Nothing in that process is extradinary or exposes the prison to a security 

risk.

The summary of inmate statements (again, without the underlying statements itself) 

bears particular emphasis. After all, the CDCR has withheld the documents based in part on

the presence of inmate statements and the potential of harm coming to such inmates. Because 

it is relevant to the Court’s analysis, and in light of the Court’s decision compelling disclosure 

of these statements, a high level summary of the content of these statements is warranted. 

Quite simply, the statements from the four inmates all support Plaintiff’s version of events. 

Without exception, all four inmates state that Defendant Juarez used force on the Plaintiff. 

Although in different words and with minor differences in the details, each inmate stated that 

Defendant Juarez kicked Plaintiff, twisted his arm, and yelled hostile statements at him. Each 

inmate was asked to estimate the amount of force used on Plaintiff on a scale of 1-10, and they 

all rated it either a 6 or 7.2 

The Court is sensitive to issues involving confidential informants and security measures 

to protect inmates from other inmates. But it does not find such a threat with the inmates 

support of Plaintiff’s version of events. There is also no allegation that there have been any 

 

2 The report also summarizes statements from five correctional staff, including 

the Defendant. Each correctional officer stated that Defendant had not kicked Plaintiff and had 

not used any force. Thus, each correctional officer confirmed the version of events set forth by 

the correctional officer Defendant.

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 13 of 16
14

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

disputes between Plaintiff and these inmates. While it is true that Plaintiff had a dispute with 

an inmate immediately before the incident at issue, there is no statement included from that 

inmate. Thus, it appears that the CDCR is withholding statements from inmate bystanders that 

largely confirm what Plaintiff said happened. 

The content of these inmate statements is not just important in balancing the interests 

involved in overruling the privilege. It reveals the context behind the Defendant and the 

CDCR’s long history of objection and withholding. They have invoked the official information 

privilege to hide multiple witness accounts supportive of Plaintiff and against the correctional 

officer defendant. Suffice to say, withholding information contrary to a party’s position is not a 

proper use of the privilege. Indeed, it is the reason that courts have been highly wary of a 

government body making its own determination of the official information privilege. That 

privilege is not codified in federal law and does not provide clear bright line test. Instead, as 

described at length above, it requires a balancing test of the importance of the information 

against the harm to legitimate security interests caused by disclosure. By its repeated objection, 

the Defendant and CDCR represented that the balancing test favored withholding this 

information. Indeed, they gave the impression that the statements might be from confidential 

informants, such that disclosure might cause Plaintiff to attack them. Obviously, they did not 

reveal that the information at issue was percipient witnesses supporting Plaintiff’s version of 

events. The comparison between their description of the contents and security risks involved 

and the actual documents is troubling. In short, the Court is concerned that Defendant and the 

CDCR have been misleading in their description of underlying information in order to shield 

from discovery highly relevant information that goes against their interest. Such conduct is all 

the more concerning when a pro se litigant is involved. 

The withheld material also includes the findings from the Office of Internal Affairs. 

These are not nearly as relevant because they are the opinions, rather than facts. Their opinions 

are not binding on the fact finder, and may indeed not be admissible. Nevertheless, given the 

specific facts in this case, the Court does not see a security reason to withhold them as 

privileged. 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 14 of 16
15

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 does see a basis to withhold all private information about the Defendant, 

including home address and social security number. Although the Court did not notice any 

private information about any other person, in the abundance of caution, the Court authorizes

redaction of any personal information of any person included, besides their name and position

at the prison.

In conclusion, the Court overrules the official information privilege objection by the 

CDCR, except regarding limited personal information as described above. The Court has 

reviewed the materials and 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. The Court notes that this is a fact-specific finding based on the specific contents 

of these documents.

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. The CDCR shall redact any personal information of any person, with the 

exception of their name and position.

2. Within 14 days from this order, the CDCR shall either provide Plaintiff with all 

additional documents and materials regarding the Investigation by the Office of 

Internal Affairs of this incident, or provide them to the Court for further in camera

review. This includes all written or recorded interviews associated with the 

investigation, as well as Exhibits 7-15. 

3. Within 14 days from this order, the CDCR shall provide a status report to this Court 

confirming such production or providing an explanation why no further production 

was made, such as that no additional documents were located despite references to 

them in the documents already provided.

4. Within 7 days of this order, if the CDCR believes that, consistent with the case law 

and findings discussed in this order, further redactions are required (such as for a 

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 15 of 16
16

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

security feature of the prison or similar detail that the Court might have overlooked 

within the report), it may submit a request for redaction and proposed redaction to 

the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00750-AWI-EPG Document 83 Filed 07/07/16 Page 16 of 16