(PC) Campbell v. Tanton

Opinion

SENARBLE CAMPBELL, No. 2:18-CV-00671-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOSHUA J. TANTON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Counsel for the parties requested an informal telephone conference with the undersigned in order to resolve a discovery dispute concerning plaintiff’s request for the production of the complete personnel files of defendants Pierce, Hammer, Rashev, and Tanton. See ECF No. 123. Having reviewed the requested documents in camera, the court has weighed the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages and has determined that the official information privilege does not bar disclosure of the following documents: 1) Pierce Bate Stamp 113-128; 2) Pierce Bate Stamp 130-131; 3) Hammer Bate Stamp 025-028; 4) Tanton Bate Stamp 020-21; and, 5) Tanton Bate Stamp 024-025. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (noting that “[i]n the context of civil rights suits against [corrections officials], this balancing approach should be ‘moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.’”) (citation omitted). Counsel for defendants shall produce these confidential materials subject to the terms and conditions of the protective order entered into by agreement of the parties on February 23, 2022. See ECF No. 127. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for defendants shall produce the above-listed confidential documents from defendants’ personnel files to plaintiff's counsel within 7 days from the date of this order subject to the terms and conditions of the protective order entered on February 23, 2022. Dated: March 2, 2022 / hice ANKE) flo "0 CAROLYNK.DELANEY/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12/camp0671.personnel.disco.docx