Julian J. Alexander v. Foster, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01341
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 JULIAN J. ALEXANDER, Case No. 1:24-cv-01341-KES-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PRODUCTION OF 11 v. DOCUMENTS BASED ON THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION PRIVILEGE 12 FOSTER, et al., (ECF No. 40) 13 Defendant.

14 Plaintiff Julian J. Alexander is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 15 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint 16 commencing this action on November 1, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that correctional 17 officers at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) violated his Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in a 18 cell contaminated with a chemical spray and thereafter denying him medical care. (ECF No. 1). 19 Now before the Court are Defendants’ Objections to Court Order Requiring Parties to 20 Exchange Documents. (ECF No. 40). 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On October 10, 2025, Defendants submitted documents they have withheld pursuant to 23 the official information privilege, specifically: 24 1. Incident Commander’s Review/Critique (AGOPRIV000001-AGOPRIV000003); 25 2. Manager’s Review-First Level (AGOPRIV000004-AGOPRIV000005); 26 3. Manager’s Review-Second Level (AGOPRIV000006-AGOPRIV000007); 27 4. IERC Executive Review Committee (“IERC”) Critique and Qualitative Evaluation 28 (AGOPRIV000008-AGOPRIV000009); 1 5. IERC Use of Force Review & Further Action Recommendation (AGOPRIV000010- 2 AGOPRIV000013); and 3 6. Incident Report Summary generated from CDCR’s internal SOMS on September 16, 4 2025 (AGOPRIV000014-AGOPRIV000017). Defendants argue that these documents are subject to the official information privilege 5 because they were generated after the cell extraction for administrative review purposes by 6 individuals who were not present or directly involved in the incident. Defendants assert that 7 production of these documents could educate inmates about CSP's administrative review policies, 8 impede future administrative review, and subject staff to unwarranted claims of misconduct. 9 Defendants further argue that certain documents contain confidential personnel information. 10 Finally, Defendants assert that the Incident Report Summary was generated in response to 11 litigation and is protected as legal work product. 12 Notably, Defendants represent that they “have already produced to Plaintiff a 13 comprehensive Incident Report Package, which contains witness statements and evidence that 14 were generated from the investigation of the subject incident that occurred on September 24, 15 2023. These documents were produced to Plaintiff as AGO000028-AGO000083.” 16 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 17 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to obtain discovery 18 “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. 19 Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Questions of privilege in federal civil rights cases are governed by federal law. 20 Fed. R. Evid. 501; Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 21 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). 22 The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as 23 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 24 N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has 25 since followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of interests in ruling on the 26 government's claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. 27 Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in 28 1 camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental 2 privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr, 426 U.S. at 406; Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033– 3 34 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To 4 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 5 discovery.”) (internal citations omitted). 6 7 III. ANALYSIS 8 Applying the legal standards set forth above, the Court first considers the potential 9 benefits of disclosure. 10 As an initial matter, the withheld documents do not contain any witness statements or 11 direct evidence of the incident in question. Again, defendants have represented that “Defendants 12 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 13 that occurred on September 24, 2023.” In contrast, the documents Defendants seek to withhold 14 concern internal evaluations regarding policies and procedures for administrative review. Such 15 internal evaluations are not direct evidence of the incident in question and thus have limited, if 16 any, relevance to resolving the issues in this case. 17 In considering the potential benefits of disclosure, the Court has also considered whether 18 the topics at issue in these internal evaluations relate to the claims in the case. In its screening 19 order, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his claim for unconstitutional conditions of 20 confinement based on “Plaintiff’s allegations that all Defendants either (1) placed him in a cell 21 recently contaminated with a chemical spray or (2) failed to take any action after he complained 22 about not being able to breathe (along with experiencing other serious symptoms).” (ECF No. 7, 23 at p. 6). The Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his claim for deliberate indifference to 24 serious medical needs based on Plaintiff’s allegations “that he was placed in a cell contaminated 25 by a chemical spray despite his complaints to Defendants of being unable to breathe. He was 26 then removed from the cell, with the only medical treatment being a check of his vitals. Shortly 27 thereafter, he was returned to the same cell. This exposure resulted in Plaintiff not being able to 28 breathe . . . .” (ECF No. 7, at p. 7-8). 1 The Court has reviewed the submitted records and finds that they do not concern either of 2 | these issues. 3 The Court has also considered the potential disadvantages of disclosure. Defendants have 4 || represented that the documents are maintained confidentially and not disclosed to inmates or the 5 | public. Defendants argue that disclosure of these confidential documents could diminish the 6 effectiveness of the review process and expose staff members to danger. While the Court does 7 not necessarily agree that disclosure of such documents would dimmish the effectiveness or the 8 review process or expose staff members to danger, it finds that disclosure would reveal details of

9 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 12 because the potential disadvantages of disclosure, while limited, outweigh the relevance of the 13 documents to the litigation. 14 IV. CONCLUSION

16 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ objections to production of documents (ECF No. AO) are sustained. 17 18 | IT IS SOORDERED. 19 ag | Dated: November 21, 2025 [sf hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28