UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JULIAN J. ALEXANDER, Case No. 1:24-cv-01341-KES-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION OF v. DOCUMENTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION PRIVILEGE FOSTER, et al., (ECF No. 40) Defendant.
Plaintiff Julian J. Alexander is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 1, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that correctional officers at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) violated his Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in a cell contaminated with a chemical spray and thereafter denying him medical care. (ECF No. 1). Now before the Court are Defendants’ Objections to Court Order Requiring Parties to Exchange Documents. (ECF No. 40). I. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2025, Defendants submitted documents they have withheld pursuant to the official information privilege, specifically: 1. Incident Commander’s Review/Critique (AGOPRIV000001-AGOPRIV000003); 2. Manager’s Review-First Level (AGOPRIV000004-AGOPRIV000005); 3. Manager’s Review-Second Level (AGOPRIV000006-AGOPRIV000007); 4. IERC Executive Review Committee (“IERC”) Critique and Qualitative Evaluation (AGOPRIV000008-AGOPRIV000009); 5. IERC Use of Force Review & Further Action Recommendation (AGOPRIV000010- AGOPRIV000013); and 6. Incident Report Summary generated from CDCR’s internal SOMS on September 16, 2025 (AGOPRIV000014-AGOPRIV000017). Defendants argue that these documents are subject to the official information privilege because they were generated after the cell extraction for administrative review purposes by individuals who were not present or directly involved in the incident. Defendants assert that production of these documents could educate inmates about CSP's administrative review policies, impede future administrative review, and subject staff to unwarranted claims of misconduct. Defendants further argue that certain documents contain confidential personnel information. Finally, Defendants assert that the Incident Report Summary was generated in response to litigation and is protected as legal work product. Notably, Defendants represent that they “have already produced to Plaintiff a comprehensive Incident Report Package, which contains witness statements and evidence that were generated from the investigation of the subject incident that occurred on September 24, 2023. These documents were produced to Plaintiff as AGO000028-AGO000083.” Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Questions of privilege in federal civil rights cases are governed by federal law. Fed. R. Evid. 501; Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The “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.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of interests in ruling on the government's claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr, 426 U.S. at 406; Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033– 34 (9th Cir. 1990) (“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.”) (internal citations omitted). Applying the legal standards set forth above, the Court first considers the potential benefits of disclosure. As an initial matter, the withheld documents do not contain any witness statements or direct evidence of the incident in question. Again, defendants have represented that “Defendants have already produced to Plaintiff a comprehensive Incident Report Package, which contains witness statements and evidence that were generated from the investigation of the subject incident that occurred on September 24, 2023.” In contrast, the documents Defendants seek to withhold concern internal evaluations regarding policies and procedures for administrative review. Such internal evaluations are not direct evidence of the incident in question and thus have limited, if any, relevance to resolving the issues in this case. In considering the potential benefits of disclosure, the Court has also considered whether the topics at issue in these internal evaluations relate to the claims in the case. In its screening order, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement based on “Plaintiff’s allegations that all Defendants either (1) placed him in a cell recently contaminated with a chemical spray or (2) failed to take any action after he complained about not being able to breathe (along with experiencing other serious symptoms).” (ECF No. 7, at p. 6). The Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on Plaintiff’s allegations “that he was placed in a cell contaminated by a chemical spray despite his complaints to Defendants of being unable to breathe. He was then removed from the cell, with the only medical treatment being a check of his vitals. Shortly thereafter, he was returned to the same cell. This exposure resulted in Plaintiff not being able to breathe . . . .” (ECF No. 7, at p. 7-8). The Court has reviewed the submitted records and finds that they do not concern either of these issues. The Court has also considered the potential disadvantages of disclosure. Defendants have represented that the documents are maintained confidentially and not disclosed to inmates or the public. Defendants argue that disclosure of these confidential documents could diminish the effectiveness of the review process and expose staff members to danger. While the Court does not necessarily agree that disclosure of such documents would dimmish the effectiveness or the review process or expose staff members to danger, it finds that disclosure would reveal details of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JULIAN J. ALEXANDER, Case No. 1:24-cv-01341-KES-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION OF v. DOCUMENTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION PRIVILEGE FOSTER, et al., (ECF No. 40) Defendant.
Plaintiff Julian J. Alexander is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on November 1, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that correctional officers at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) violated his Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in a cell contaminated with a chemical spray and thereafter denying him medical care. (ECF No. 1). Now before the Court are Defendants’ Objections to Court Order Requiring Parties to Exchange Documents. (ECF No. 40). I. BACKGROUND On October 10, 2025, Defendants submitted documents they have withheld pursuant to the official information privilege, specifically: 1. Incident Commander’s Review/Critique (AGOPRIV000001-AGOPRIV000003); 2. Manager’s Review-First Level (AGOPRIV000004-AGOPRIV000005); 3. Manager’s Review-Second Level (AGOPRIV000006-AGOPRIV000007); 4. IERC Executive Review Committee (“IERC”) Critique and Qualitative Evaluation (AGOPRIV000008-AGOPRIV000009); 5. IERC Use of Force Review & Further Action Recommendation (AGOPRIV000010- AGOPRIV000013); and 6. Incident Report Summary generated from CDCR’s internal SOMS on September 16, 2025 (AGOPRIV000014-AGOPRIV000017). Defendants argue that these documents are subject to the official information privilege because they were generated after the cell extraction for administrative review purposes by individuals who were not present or directly involved in the incident. Defendants assert that production of these documents could educate inmates about CSP's administrative review policies, impede future administrative review, and subject staff to unwarranted claims of misconduct. Defendants further argue that certain documents contain confidential personnel information. Finally, Defendants assert that the Incident Report Summary was generated in response to litigation and is protected as legal work product. Notably, Defendants represent that they “have already produced to Plaintiff a comprehensive Incident Report Package, which contains witness statements and evidence that were generated from the investigation of the subject incident that occurred on September 24, 2023. These documents were produced to Plaintiff as AGO000028-AGO000083.” Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Questions of privilege in federal civil rights cases are governed by federal law. Fed. R. Evid. 501; Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The “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.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of interests in ruling on the government's claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr, 426 U.S. at 406; Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033– 34 (9th Cir. 1990) (“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.”) (internal citations omitted). Applying the legal standards set forth above, the Court first considers the potential benefits of disclosure. As an initial matter, the withheld documents do not contain any witness statements or direct evidence of the incident in question. Again, defendants have represented that “Defendants have already produced to Plaintiff a comprehensive Incident Report Package, which contains witness statements and evidence that were generated from the investigation of the subject incident that occurred on September 24, 2023.” In contrast, the documents Defendants seek to withhold concern internal evaluations regarding policies and procedures for administrative review. Such internal evaluations are not direct evidence of the incident in question and thus have limited, if any, relevance to resolving the issues in this case. In considering the potential benefits of disclosure, the Court has also considered whether the topics at issue in these internal evaluations relate to the claims in the case. In its screening order, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement based on “Plaintiff’s allegations that all Defendants either (1) placed him in a cell recently contaminated with a chemical spray or (2) failed to take any action after he complained about not being able to breathe (along with experiencing other serious symptoms).” (ECF No. 7, at p. 6). The Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on Plaintiff’s allegations “that he was placed in a cell contaminated by a chemical spray despite his complaints to Defendants of being unable to breathe. He was then removed from the cell, with the only medical treatment being a check of his vitals. Shortly thereafter, he was returned to the same cell. This exposure resulted in Plaintiff not being able to breathe . . . .” (ECF No. 7, at p. 7-8). The Court has reviewed the submitted records and finds that they do not concern either of these issues. The Court has also considered the potential disadvantages of disclosure. Defendants have represented that the documents are maintained confidentially and not disclosed to inmates or the public. Defendants argue that disclosure of these confidential documents could diminish the effectiveness of the review process and expose staff members to danger. While the Court does not necessarily agree that disclosure of such documents would dimmish the effectiveness or the review process or expose staff members to danger, it finds that disclosure would reveal details of
a process that CDCR has decided to keep confidential. The Court thus finds that there is some potential disadvantage to disclosure of the documents. After weighing the potential benefits with disadvantages of disclosure, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to withhold these documents under the official information privilege because the potential disadvantages of disclosure, while limited, outweigh the relevance of the documents to the litigation. IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ objections to production of documents (ECF No. AO) are sustained. IT IS SOORDERED. ag | Dated: November 21, 2025 [sf hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE