Hernandez v. I.S.U.

Background

Joseph Hernandez, an inmate at High Desert State Prison, brought a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events at Pelican Bay State Prison. The complaint alleges that officers Kaufman, McBride, Bradbury, and Townsend violated Hernandez’s due-process rights by placing him in administrative segregation on August 5, 2017, based on unreliable evidence. It also alleges that officer Lacy retaliated against him by refusing to conduct an unbiased investigation of his grievance challenging that placement.

Hernandez moved to compel production of an August 3, 2017 confidential memorandum. He argued that the memorandum could support his claim that the administrative-segregation placement was based on unreliable information and that correctional officers sought to “get rid” of him. The defendants opposed production based on irrelevance and concerns that disclosure could threaten the safety of correctional officers and inmates, compromise investigations, and reveal sensitive prison-security information.

The court had previously found the memorandum relevant and ordered the defendants to submit it for private judicial review. After receiving and reviewing the memorandum, the court considered the parties’ arguments, a declaration from PBSP Investigative Services Unit sergeant S. Skerick, and the factors governing the official-information privilege.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense. Federal common law recognizes a qualified official-information privilege for government records. Courts balance the benefits of disclosure against its potential disadvantages. The party opposing disclosure must make a substantial initial showing of harm with a declaration or affidavit that specifically explains the privilege claim and the threatened governmental or privacy interests.

Under the factors discussed in Kelly v. City of San Jose, the government’s showing should address, among other things, whether the material was collected and maintained confidentially, whether the responsible official personally reviewed it, the specific interests threatened by disclosure, why a protective order would not adequately reduce the risk, and the likely extent of harm. If the government makes the required initial showing, the requesting party must show the information’s relevance and explain the harm that would result from withholding it.

Analysis

The court concluded that the memorandum was directly relevant and could reasonably be considered essential to evaluating Hernandez’s claims because it contained the information that led to his administrative-segregation placement.

The court found the defendants’ general concerns about disclosing confidential information to an inmate reasonable. However, it concluded that the defendants had not made the required initial showing of harm under the Kelly factors. The court noted that Skerick’s declaration did not establish that the memorandum’s confidentiality had been maintained, did not clearly show that Skerick had reviewed the memorandum, and did not explain why disclosure of this particular memorandum would cause harm too severe to risk. Instead, the declaration presented general arguments about the risks of disclosing confidential prison information and asserted generally that protective orders and redactions could never be sufficient.

The court recognized an inherent risk that an inmate could misuse confidential information or disregard a protective order. But it rejected the argument that this risk always permits defendants to withhold relevant information. The court noted that Hernandez stated he would follow any protective order and that the record contained nothing indicating he was acting in bad faith. Because the memorandum was central to the case and the official-information privilege is generally weighted moderately in favor of disclosure, the court found that limited disclosure was appropriate.

Ruling and required actions

The court granted Hernandez’s motion to compel the August 3, 2017 memorandum, subject to redactions and a protective order.

The court ordered the parties to execute the Northern District of California’s Model Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation. The defendants must file an order executed by both parties within 14 days and must coordinate with prison officials to obtain Hernandez’s signature. If the defendants believe the model order is inappropriate, they must notify the court within seven days and provide a proposed protective order, a declaration explaining why the model is impracticable and each proposed modification, and a comparison showing the changes.

The court reviewed and made redactions to the memorandum. Within seven days, the defendants must state whether they consent to those redactions. If they object, they must submit proposed additional or different redactions for private court review and provide specific reasons. After the protective order is filed and any redaction objections are resolved, the court will order production of the redacted memorandum to Hernandez within a specified period.