Loggervale v. County of Alameda

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning allegedly unlawful arrests and a search. The opinion states that Alameda County sheriff’s officers approached a silver sedan stopped in a Starbucks parking lot in the early morning. The plaintiffs, whom the opinion describes as African American women and including one juvenile, were in the car. The officers were investigating recent unsolved commercial burglaries and believed the car and visible occupants matched descriptions of suspects.

The plaintiffs asserted claims against the officers who initially stopped them and against a supervisor. They also alleged excessive force and assault. Their claims included an allegation that the County of Alameda approved or ratified unconstitutional conduct. The internal-affairs report described the events, the internal investigation, and whether the officers’ conduct complied with department policy.

Discovery dispute

The parties disputed whether the internal-affairs report had to be produced. After reviewing the report privately, the court found it discoverable. The court applied the rule that an internal-affairs report is a nonpublic government record subject to a qualified privilege, meaning the privilege can be overcome when the potential benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential disadvantages.

The defendants argued that the report contained an inadmissible opinion and was a remedial measure that could not lead to admissible evidence. The court stated that the first part of that objection would be decided before trial, but rejected the argument that the report could not lead to admissible evidence. For example, the report could lead to witness testimony. The defendants also argued that disclosure could discourage frank internal discussions. The court found that concern outweighed by the report’s relevance and offset by the existing protective order.

The court also discussed a framework under which the party asserting official-information privilege must identify the privilege and submit a declaration or affidavit from an agency official with personal knowledge and direct involvement. The declaration must address confidentiality, the official’s review of the material, the governmental or privacy interests at risk, the harm that disclosure under a protective order could cause, and the expected degree of harm. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants had not submitted such an affidavit, and the defendants did not contest that statement. Because of that omission, the court did not reach the other factors in that framework.

Ruling

The court ordered the defendants to produce the internal-affairs report to the plaintiffs no later than noon on February 3, 2021. The order addressed discovery only and did not decide the underlying claims about the arrests, search, force, assault, or alleged County ratification. Judge William Alsup signed the order on February 1, 2021.