Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01194/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01194-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES H. WASHBURN JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN JR., WALTER CONTRERAS,

and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants. /

KEVIN ROY JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN, JR., JASON KRISTAL, and

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-03-00869 MJJ (EDL)

No. C-03-1194 MJJ (EDL)

ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS LODGED FOR IN

CAMERA REVIEW

On June 9, 2005, the Court ordered Defendants to produce for in camera review: (1) Officer

Fagan’s background investigation file; (2) Lieutenant Feeney’s counseling memorandum regarding

Officer Fagan; (3) Officer Fagan’s PIP file; and (4) Sergeant Stansberry’s memorandum regarding

insubordination by Officer Kristal. On June 17, 2005, Defendants timely lodged those documents. 

The Court has reviewed the documents and makes the following Order.

Case 3:03-cv-01194-MJJ Document 130 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Background investigation file

The Court conducted an in camera review of the background investigation file to determine

whether any information should be redacted based on privacy. While the background investigation

file implicates Officer Fagan’s privacy interests, the need for the information, the fact that it is not

available from any other source and the great public interest in the careful hiring of police officers

outweigh the impact of the discovery on privacy rights. Moreover, Dr. Lenhart’s report, produced

more than four months after the Court ordered its production, opened the door to discovery of the

file. Therefore, Defendants shall produce Officer Fagan’s entire background investigation file. 

The Court notes that in some instances, Defendants properly redacted personal identifying

information from the background investigation file such as Officer Fagan’s social security number

and the telephone numbers of persons who completed reference forms for Officer Fagan. However,

not all instances were redacted. The Court cautions Defendants to review the file to ensure that all

private identifying information is redacted. 

Lieutenant Feeney’s memo

This memo, which recounts informal counseling given to Officer Fagan, is highly relevant,

but implicates Officer Fagan’s privacy rights. However, the need for the information and the

inability to obtain it elsewhere weigh in favor of production of the memo. Further, the public

interest in the hiring and employment of good police officers is great. Therefore, Defendants must

produce Lieutenent Feeney’s memo. 

Officer Fagan’s PIP file

Officer Fagan’s privacy interests in this file are outweighed by the need for the information

and the inability to obtain it elsewhere. Not all of the file, however, is relevant and discoverable. 

Defendants shall produce Bates-stamped numbers WASH/JORD 00717-00726, 00740-00743,

00760-00768, 00774-00777, 00778-00868. 

Memorandum regarding Officer Kristal

Defendants did not produce this memo because they believed it to be irrelevant. After

reviewing the document, the Court finds that it is relevant and discoverable and must be produced.

// 

Case 3:03-cv-01194-MJJ Document 130 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, Defendants shall produce the above-described documents no later than July 8,

2005. The documents shall be used for purposes of this litigation only and must be kept strictly

confidential. If the records or their contents are used in any court filing, the party seeking to file

them shall comply with Local Rule 79-5 regarding sealing. The documents shall be destroyed upon

the conclusion of this litigation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-01194-MJJ Document 130 Filed 06/23/05 Page 3 of 3