(PC) Harris v. German
1:15-cv-01462-ADA-GSA
| E.D. Cal. | Sep 24, 2019Background
- Harris, a pro se prisoner, alleges multiple incidents of excessive force and retaliation by Corrections Officers at Corcoran State Prison in 2011; his operative First Amended Complaint proceeds on Eighth Amendment and First Amendment claims against three named officers.
- Plaintiff moved to compel production of a Confidential Appeal Supplement (an investigatory report / inquiry package) related to administrative appeal COR-11-01080; he earlier withdrew a separate request for two videotapes after being allowed to view them.
- Defendants responded with a privilege log and a declaration by M. Kimbrell invoking the official-information privilege and CDCR regulations to withhold the confidential appeal supplement, arguing disclosure would jeopardize safety and internal deliberations.
- The court evaluated the adequacy of the privilege assertion under federal common-law official-information privilege principles (Kerr/Kelly framework) and related Ninth Circuit authority.
- The court found Defendants’ privilege log and declaration inadequate (no showing of personal review or document-specific harm), concluded the plaintiff’s need and the probative value of the report outweighed the claimed harms, and ordered production of the May 22, 2011 Confidential Appeal Supplement with non-party witness names/IDs and other identifying information redacted by October 25, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigatory Confidential Appeal Supplement must be produced despite an asserted official-information privilege | Harris: report is highly relevant to excessive-force claims (esp. because a contemporaneous injury video is missing) and Kelly balancing favors disclosure | Defendants: official-information privilege and CDCR regs protect the report; disclosure would jeopardize safety and confidentiality | Court: Defendants failed to meet the privilege threshold and balancing favors disclosure; report must be produced (redactions allowed) |
| Whether Defendants met the threshold showing to invoke the official-information privilege (personal review, specificity of harm) | Harris: privilege log/declaration insufficient under Kerr/Kelly and Soto | Defendants: privilege log and Kimbrell declaration suffice to withhold | Court: Declaration/log inadequate (no personal review; log not document-specific); threshold not met |
| Relevance and weight of the report versus security/privacy interests | Harris: information (witness statements, investigation notes) is highly probative and necessary because evidence (video) was lost | Defendants: disclosure would chill witness cooperation and reveal internal evaluation methods, harming institutional safety | Court: Relevance and need outweigh generalized security concerns; limited redactions (non-party names/PIDs) permitted to protect privacy/security |
| Scope of production and permissible redactions | Harris: sought production of the review/evaluation materials | Defendants: sought to withhold entire package | Court: Ordered production of Confidential Appeal Supplement (May 22, 2011) but allowed redaction of non-party witness names, PIDs, and other identifying info |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive-force standard)
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192 (official-information privilege; need for affidavit/personal review)
- Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (balancing test and elements for evaluating official-information privilege)
- Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (applying Kelly threshold and burden requirements)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA/exhaustion discussion recognizing the evidentiary value of grievance investigations)
- Tornay v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424 (burden on privilege claimant)