Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00066-11/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON LATRELL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GUFFEY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0066 JAM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the May 22, 2015 motion to quash subpoena 

duces tecum filed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and 

Special Agent M. Ortega. (ECF No. 91.) On June 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a response to this 

motion. (ECF No. 94.) 

Following the reasons stated herein, CDCR and Special Agent Ortega are directed to 

submit the at-issue documents for in-camera review. 

Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2013, defendants assaulted him in apparent retaliation 

for plaintiff’s earlier statements which were disrespectful of defendant Guffey’s wife and family. 

(ECF No. 56 at 11-12.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants came to his cell armed with pepper 

spray. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff alleges that after his cell door was opened, defendant Ruiz grabbed 

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 96 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 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

2

his right arm and rammed plaintiff’s head into the edge of the door. (Id.) Allegedly in selfdefense, plaintiff punched defendant Ruiz which caused defendant Ruiz’s nose to bleed. (Id.) At 

this point, plaintiff’s cell door was closed. (Id.) Moments later, defendant Guffey returned to the 

tier and tried to clean up defendant Ruiz’s blood, but missed a spot. (Id.) On March 5, 2013, 

Sergeant Ortiz took photos of defendant Ruiz’s blood. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when 

defendants attacked him, defendant Ruiz mentioned that the attack was because of the 

disrespectful statements plaintiff made regarding defendant Guffey’s family. (Id. at 12.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s subpoena seeks disclosure of Internal Affairs Investigative Materials relating to 

the incident subject of this action. CDCR and Special Agent Ortega move to quash the subpoena 

on grounds that the Internal Affairs investigative file consists of official information protected 

from disclosure. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires a court to quash or modify a subpoena that 

“requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or 

... subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). The party moving to quash a 

subpoena bears the burden of persuasion, “but the party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate 

that the discovery sought is relevant.” Drummond Co. v. Collingsworth, 2013 WL 6074157, at 

*9 (N.D.Cal. 2013).

Legal Standard for Official Information Privilege

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

v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[g]overnment personnel files are 

considered official information.”). This qualified privilege “must be formally asserted and 

delineated in order to be raised properly.” Kerr v. U.S. District Court, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 

1975) (internal citations omitted). To properly invoke the official information privilege, “[t]he 

claiming official must ‘have seen and considered the contents of the documents and himself have 

formed the view that on grounds of public interest they ought not to be produced’ and state with 

specificity the rationale of the claimed privilege.” Id.

////

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 96 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 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

3

The party invoking the privilege must at the outset make a “substantial threshold 

showing” by way of a declaration of affidavit from a responsible official with personal 

knowledge of the matters to be attested to in the affidavit. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 

603, 613 (N.D.Cal. 1995). 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.

Id. (quoting Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

If the party meets the threshold showing, the court balances the interests and decides 

whether the privilege applies. “To determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts 

must weigh the potential benefits of the disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the 

latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1034; see also Martinez v. 

City of Stockton, 132 F.R.D. 677 (E.D. Cal. 1990). Where otherwise discoverable information 

would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a protective privacy 

interest, a need may arise for the court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure 

should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

Analysis

CDCR and Special Agent Ortega argue that CDCR has a substantial interest in 

maintaining the confidentiality of its internal investigations. In support of this claim, CDCR and 

Special Agent Ortega have filed the declaration of CDCR Internal Affairs Litigation Coordinator 

Croyts-Schooley. (ECF No. 91-2.) Croyts-Schooley states that disclosing the Internal Affairs file 

will jeopardize inmate, staff and institutional safety and security by disclosing the techniques and 

methodology utilized by the Office of Internal Affairs, when conducting investigations. (Id. at 2.) 

Croyts-Schooley also states that disclosing the Internal Affairs file could also subject staff 

witnesses to harassment and manipulation by inmates. (Id.) In addition, inmate witnesses could 

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 96 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 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

4

be subjected to harassment for having assisted law enforcement. (Id.) 

The undersigned finds that CDCR and Special Agent Ortega have made a sufficient 

showing that the documents sought by plaintiff regarding the Internal Affairs investigation are

possibly protected by the official information privilege. Under these circumstances, the court will 

direct CDCR and Special Agent Ortega to submit to the undersigned for in-camera review the 

responsive documents. The undersigned will then determine whether it is appropriate for 

defendants to produce the documents, whether in unredacted or redacted form, or subject to a 

protective order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days of the date of this order, CDCR and Special Agent Ortega shall submit 

for in-camera review the documents responsive to plaintiff’s request for the Internal Affairs 

investigations described above;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Deputy Attorney 

General Stanton W. Lee. 

Dated: June 17, 2015

Thom66.inf(2)

Case 2:14-cv-00066-JAM-KJN Document 96 Filed 06/17/15 Page 4 of 4