(PC) Dillingham v. Garcia

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 18, 2019
• Docket: 1:18-cv-00579
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 JERRY DILLINGHAM, Case No. 1:18-cv-00579-LJO-EPG (PC)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DOCUMENTS 11 v. WITHHELD ON THE BASIS OF THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION 12 PRIVILEGE F. GARCIA, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Jerry Dillingham (“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 claims against Defendant Garcia for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of 18 the First Amendment, and excessive force and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 19 Amendment.” (ECF No. 21, at p. 4). Plaintiff’s claims stem from allegations in his complaint 20 that Defendant Garcia threatened Plaintiff’s life and told other inmates to attack Plaintiff 21 because Plaintiff wrote 602 grievances against him, that Defendant Garcia conspired with an 22 inmate to have that inmate attack Plaintiff, and that Defendant Garcia watched that inmate 23 attack Plaintiff without trying to prevent it. 24 Based on information provided in Defendant Garcia’s scheduling conference statement, 25 and after discussion at a scheduling conference held on September 30, 2019, the Court ordered 26 that “Defendant(s) have thirty days from the date of service of [the scheduling] order to submit 27 to the Court for in camera review the two confidential memoranda that were prepared in 28 1 connection with Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, the two confidential appeal inquiry 2 findings that were prepared in connection with Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, and 3 other related documents.” (ECF No. 75, at p. 2) (footnote omitted). 4 On October 31, 2019, Defendant Garcia complied with the Court’s order and submitted 5 the documents for in camera review. (ECF No. 81). Defendant Garcia included an explanation 6 for his claim that the documents should be withheld under the official information privilege. 7 (ECF Nos. 80 & 81). He also included a declaration from J. Barba and a privilege log. (Id.). 8 The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as 9 the official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the 10 competing interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure. . . .” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. 11 Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975) (internal citations omitted). The 12 Ninth Circuit has since followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of 13 interests in ruling on the government’s claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., 14 Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required 15 by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of 16 dealing with claims of governmental privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr v. U. S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of 17 Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 406 (1976)); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th 18 Cir. 1990), as amended on denial of reh'g (Feb. 27, 1991), as amended on denial of reh'g (May 19 24, 1991) (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To determine 20 whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of 21 disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars 22 discovery.”) (internal citations omitted). 23 With these legal standards in mind, the Court has conducted an in camera review of the 24 documents withheld under the official information privilege. 25 The Court holds that the following documents or portions of documents should be 26 produced because the potential benefits of disclosure are greater than the potential 27 disadvantages: 28 • Pages 010, 017-20, 022, 043-47 1 These documents include statements from Plaintiff and Defendant about the central 2 in this lawsuit, 1.e., whether Defendant Garcia solicited other inmates to retaliate against 3 || Plaintiff. It also includes Plaintiffs grievances and responses on this and related issues. 4 The Court holds that the remaining documents may be withheld under the official 5 ||information privilege. The Court believes that these documents could pose safety and security 6 || concerns to Plaintiff as well as others at the prison. The Court is mindful that the complaint at 7 in this case concerns the allegation that Plaintiff was attacked by other inmates based on g || Plaintiff's grievances implicating officers and inmates. The potential for retaliation based on 9 || disclosure of additional documents related to Plaintiff's grievances is high. In assessing the 10 ||relevance of these documents, the Court notes that none of them contain a witness statement, 11 || other than by Plaintiff, supporting Plaintiffs assertion that Defendant Garcia solicited other 12 |]inmates to retaliate against Plaintiff. 13 For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that, within thirty days of the date of service of 14 order, Defendant Garcia shall produce to Plaintiff the documents at Pages 010, 017-20, 15 || 022, 043-47. 16 Defendant Garcia is permitted to withhold the remaining documents under the official 17 information privilege. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _ November 15, 2019 [Je hey — 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28