Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Prada
Defendant
King Solomon
Plaintiff
Tapia
Defendant

Document Text:

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KING SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRADA and TAPIA,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR IN 

CAMERA REVIEW

(Doc. No. 40)

On December 4, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery 

and ordered Defendants to submit for in camera review certain documents for which Defendants 

asserted official information privilege. (Doc. No. 40). Pursuant to that Order, Defendants 

submitted to the Court both redacted and unredacted documents related to the investigation, seven 

audio recordings, and one video recording. Upon review of the materials submitted, the Court 

finds that the redacted “AIMS Report” and the redacted documentary and audio-video exhibits to 

the investigation are sufficiently relevant to Plaintiff’s claims to outweigh the government’s

interest in the confidentiality of those records. Thus, the Court will order Defendants to permit 

Plaintiff to review these materials in a secure setting but not retain the materials.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The Ninth Circuit recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. Kerr v. U.S. 

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 42 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). 

However, “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as the 

official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing 

interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure . . .” Id. at 198 (internal citations 

omitted). Thus, a “court must balance the government’s interest in protecting official information 

from disclosure against the plaintiff’s need for the information.” Edwards v. Cnty. of L.A., 2009 

WL 4707996, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009). This balancing test is “moderately pre-weighted 

in favor of disclosure” in civil rights cases. Kelly v. San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 

1987).

When the official information privilege is invoked to prevent disclosure of government 

records, courts should conduct an in camera review to determine whether the privileged 

documents relevancy compels their disclosure. See, e.g., Seminara v. City of Long Beach, 68 

F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1995); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 1990), 

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

(internal citations omitted) (“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.”). In the past, this Court has compelled the disclosure of documents after either an in 

camera review and redaction or subject to a protective order despite the invocation of official 

information privilege. See, e.g., Caruso v. Solorio, 2018 WL 2254365, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 

2018); Noble v. City of Fresno, 2017 WL 5665850, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017).

B. Analysis

Here, Defendants assert official information privilege as to the AIMS Report1and related 

records. The AIMS Report summarizes the investigating lieutenant’s interviews with five 

inmates (including Plaintiff) and with the two correctional officer Defendants. The interviews of

the four inmate-witnesses were conducted in December 2021, roughly five months after the 

1 The official title of the document provided is “Grievance Allegation Inquiry Report.”

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 42 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 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

3

alleged incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim. The Report notes that the inmates were selected 

because they were housed in Plaintiff’s unit at the time of the incident. Each inmate-witness 

denied ever having seen an altercation between Plaintiff and the two Defendants, and three of 

them deny even recognizing Plaintiff. The two Defendants likewise deny the allegations 

altogether.

The Court finds the AIMS Report to have significant relevance to Plaintiff’s claims, given 

that if true, the statements contained therein have a “tendency to make a fact [of consequence in 

determining the action] more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” See Fed. 

R. Evid. 401 (emphasis added). The fact that four presumably neutral witnesses, who were 

housed in Plaintiff’s unit at the relevant time, deny any knowledge of the incident makes the facts 

alleged in Plaintiff’s claim less probable and thus highly relevant to the action.

As to the government’s countervailing interest in the confidentiality of official 

information, Defendants have redacted the Report to remove any identifying information for the 

inmate witnesses or other sensitive information that could threaten the security of the institution. 

The Court finds the redactions reasonable and that on balance the relevance of the documents 

outweighs Defendants’ limited interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the government 

information. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-34. Moreover, any concern about disclosure of 

potentially sensitive information is further mitigated by Defendants’ proposal that Plaintiff only 

be permitted to review the documents in a secure setting, and not be permitted to retain copies of 

the documents. The Court finds these protective measure appropriate.

The Exhibits to the AIMS Report include seven audio interviews (of the four inmate 

witnesses, the two Defendants, and Plaintiff), one video interview of Plaintiff, and documentary 

exhibits including advisements sent to Defendants regarding the investigation and other CDCR 

records. The Court has reviewed the audio of the interviews conducted by the investigating 

lieutenant, compared them to the summaries provided in the AIMS Report, and certifies that the 

summaries are accurate. Nevertheless, the recordings may contain some additional information 

not included in the summaries. Given the obvious security concerns involved in disclosing the 

identity of the inmate witnesses, the Court finds the government’s redactions of the entire audio 

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 42 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 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

4

recordings appropriate, and that its interest in security and protection of inmates outweighs the 

limited benefit of disclosing the audio recordings of those interviews to Plaintiff. See Sanchez, 

936 F.2d at 1033-34. 

Those same security concerns are significantly less with respect to the interviews 

conducted with Plaintiff, Tapia, and Parra. No information posing an obvious threat to the 

security or privacy of the two Defendants is disclosed in their interviews. Meanwhile, the 

recordings may provide some additional relevant information not contained in the interview 

summaries. Thus, the Court finds disclosure of these recordings outweighs the government’s 

limited interest in the confidentiality of the recordings. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to review 

the audio recordings of the interviews with him, Defendants Tapia or Parra, CDCR shall make the

recordings, redacted if appropriate,

2

available for Plaintiff to review in a secure setting.

As to the documentary exhibits, these have been heavily redacted but nevertheless may 

contain some information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Given the very limited government 

interest in maintaining confidentiality of the remaining unredacted information, the Court will 

order these redacted documentary exhibits disclosed as well, subject to the same protective 

measures described above. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 37) is granted in part. Within 14 days from 

the date of this order, Defendants shall permit Plaintiff to review the following 

documents withheld under the official information privilege and provided in camera to 

the Court:

a. The redacted Grievance Allegation Inquiry Report dated December 8, 2021 

regarding Grievance Log # 136737.

b. The redacted documentary Exhibits to the Grievance Allegation Inquiry Report 

dated December 8, 2021.

c. Audio recordings of the witness interviews with Plaintiff, Defendant Parra, and 

2 CDCR notes that it intends to redact only the name of the staff member who conducted the interview, 

which the Court finds appropriate.

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 42 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 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

5

Defendant Tapia, redacted as appropriate, and the video recording of the 

interview with Plaintiff.

2. The Court approves CDCR’s request that Plaintiff only be permitted to review these 

materials in a secure setting and that he not be permitted to retain copies of any 

materials. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to attach any of the materials to a dispositive 

motion, he may seek assistance in doing so from the Litigation Coordinator at his 

institution.

Dated: December 11, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 42 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 5