(PC) Williams v. Rasey ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DAVID WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00203-NONE-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER RE: DOCUMENTS WITHHELD ON THE BASIS OF THE 12 OFFICIAL INFORMATION C. RASEY, PRIVILEGE 13 Defendant. 14 15 David Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s original complaint (ECF 17 No. 1), on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force and First Amendment retaliation 18 claims against Defendant Casey (ECF No. 8, at p. 5). Plaintiff’s complaint generally alleges 19 that, on July 30, 2019, Defendant C. Rasey struck Plaintiff in his stomach, causing severe pain. 20 Defendant Rasey assaulted Plaintiff because he filed a grievance against her colleagues. 21 Based on information provided in Defendant Rasey’s scheduling conference statement, 22 (ECF No. 21), the Court ordered the parties to produce or provide to the Court for in camera 23 review any witness statements and evidence gathered as part of this investigation. (ECF No. 24, 24 at p. 2-3). 25 On June 8, 2021, Defendant Rasey complied with the Court’s order and submitted the 26 documents for in camera review. (ECF No. 25). Defendant Rasey included an explanation for 27 her claim that the documents should be withheld under the official information privilege. She 28 1 also included a declaration from J. Barba. (Id.). Defendant also provided proposed redacted 2 versions of the same documents, which redacted certain particularly sensitive and confidential 3 information. 4 The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as 5 the official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the 6 competing interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure. . . .” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. 7 Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (internal citations omitted). The 8 Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of 9 interests in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., 10 Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required 11 by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of 12 dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr v. U. S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of 13 Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 406 (1976)); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th 14 Cir. 1990), as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh’g (May 15 24, 1991) (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To determine 16 whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of 17 disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars 18 discovery.”) (internal citations omitted). 19 With these legal standards in mind, the Court has conducted an in camera review of the 20 documents withheld under the official information privilege. 21 The Court holds that the following documents or portions of documents should be 22 produced in redacted form because the potential benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential 23 disadvantages. 24 • DEF 0486 25 • DEF 0487 26 • DEF 0488 27 • DEF 0491 28 • DEF 0492 1 e DEF 0497 2 e DEF 499-500. However, Defendants may redact the conclusion paragraph of this 3 document, which does not include any witness statements or factual information. 4 These documents include statements from Plaintiff and Defendant about the central 5 in this lawsuit, i.e., whether Defendant Rasey struck Plaintiff. They also include the 6 || statement of another witness. 7 The Court holds that the remaining documents and redactions may be withheld under 8 || the official information privilege. The Court believes that the benefits of disclosure in terms of 9 || relevance to this lawsuit are outweighed by the potential disadvantages regarding 10 || confidentiality and security. 11 For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that, within thirty days of the date of service of 12 order, Defendant Rasey shall produce to Plaintiff the documents listed above in redacted 13 || form. 14 Defendant Rasey is permitted to withhold the remaining documents under the official 15 information privilege. 16 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘8 |! Dated: _ June 22, 2021 [sf ey 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28