Opinion
Case No.: 13cv1101-GPC-BGS
09-09-2016
John Roettgen, Plaintiff, v. Foston, et al, Defendant.
ORDER
(1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF WITHHELD DOCUMENT
(2) DENYING AS MOOT NON-PARTY MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2016, the Court issued an order compelling Defendants to produce certain documents. (ECF No. 92.) The Court ordered the documents produced within seven days of issuance of a protective order limiting disclosure of the documents. (Id. at 18.) The Court issued a protective order on June 7, 2016. (ECF No. 96.) On June 14, 2016, Defendants served responsive documents by mail. (ECF No. 108 ¶ 3, Declaration of Christopher H. Findley in Response to Plaintiff's motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Records Responsive to Court Order.) Defendants withheld one document at the request of a third-party correctional staff member [Captain Shirley Sanchez], and produced a supplemental privilege log identifying the document. (Id. ¶ 4.)
On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of this withheld document. (ECF No. 120.) Also on August 18, 2016, non-party Captain Shirley Sanchez filed a Motion for In Camera Review and Protective Order. (ECF No. 116.) In this motion, Captain Sanchez explains that Defendant Hernandez was the subject of a complaint filed by her, which involved a "very personal matter." (Id. at 2.) This complaint and resulting investigation is the document withheld by Defendants, and identified in their supplemental privilege log. Captain Sanchez requested this Court conduct an in camera review of this document to determine whether it should be withheld from disclosure in this case. (Id. at 4.)
On August 23, 2016, this Court granted Captain Sanchez's request for an in camera review of the document and ordered Defendants to provide the document to the Court no later than August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 121.) Defendants provided the document to the Court and the Court has reviewed the document.
II. RELEVANT LAW
Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern District, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (balancing the invasion of minor's privacy rights against the court's need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (denying discovery of names of participants in a medical study due to privacy interests of the individual participants); Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-51 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (balancing targeted individual's right of privacy against public's need for discovery in employment discrimination case).
However, the right to privacy is not absolute and can be outweighed. Courts generally balance the need for the information against the severity of the invasion of privacy. See Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604-05 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (finding that disclosing employment records is not "unusual or unexpected"). Disclosure of documents that implicate privacy concerns must be narrowly construed to limit the invasion "'to the extent necessary for a fair resolution of the law suit.'" Id. at 605 (quoting Cook, 132 F.R.D. at 552). In the context of the disclosure of police files, courts have recognized that privacy rights are not inconsequential and should be given "some weight." Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 656; Denver Policemen's Protective Ass'n. v. Lichtenstein, 660 F.2d 432, 435 (10th Cir. 1981). However, "district courts in the Ninth Circuit have found that the privacy interests police officers have in their personnel files do not outweigh the civil rights plaintiff's need for the documents." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 617.
III. DISCUSSION
After a review of the document in question, the Court has determined that only limited portions of the document are responsive to what this Court ordered produced to Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court finds that the document implicates the privacy interests of non-party Captain Sanchez. This invasion of privacy must be balanced with Plaintiff's need for the information. These two interests can be balanced by limiting the information disclosed to Plaintiff to only the information directly relevant to his case. The Court finds that the following portions of the document should be disclosed:
AGO-417: The paragraph starting with "1." and ending with "NOT SUSTAINED" and the paragraph starting with "2." and ending with "NOT SUSTAINED"
AGO-422: The line starting with "I reviewed . . ." continuing to the following line and ending with "Unit . . ."
AGO-423: The fifth paragraph starting with "wrote 'I asked . . .'" and ending with "conversation . . ."
AGO-427: The line starting with "I reviewed a memorandum . . ." and ending with "out with her."
AGO-430: The heading "Interview Of" through the end of the page.
AGO-431: The paragraph starting with "June 26, 2014 . . ." through the next paragraph ending in "June 26, 2014, while in . . ."
AGO-431: The paragraph starting with "relayed that on . . . through the next paragraph ending with "while in her office."
AGO-442: The line starting with "On December 9, 2014 . . ." and ending with "(Exhibit 13)"
AGO-448: The fourth full paragraph on the page starting with "Regarding asking . . ." and ending with "(during their interview)"
If counsel for Defendants has any questions regarding what should be disclosed, they should contact chambers directly for clarification. The Court notes that the document presented to the Court contained redactions. For the portions of the document ordered disclosed to Plaintiff, the Court orders the same redactions be applied to protect the identities of those involved other than Defendant Hernandez. The Court orders production of this document subject to the conditions and agreements set forth in the protective order between the two parties. (ECF No. 96.)
IV. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY NON-PARTY (ECF NO. 116)
On August 18, 2016, non-party Captain Sanchez filed a motion for protective order over the document in question. (ECF No. 116.) The Court finds that the protective order already in place, in addition to the above described limitations on the production of the document, sufficiently protect the interests of Captain Sanchez. As such, the Court DENIES the non-party Motion for a Protective Order between Plaintiff and Captain Sanchez.
V. CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants must produce the portions of the document in /// /// /// /// /// question, as indicated above, no later than September 16 , 2016 .
Non-Party Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 9, 2016
/s/_________
Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
United States Magistrate Judge