Richard v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Breonna Richard brought this civil-rights lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco based on allegations that San Francisco police officers beat and later harassed Richard and her boyfriend. The case was stayed as to Officer Terrance Stangel after criminal charges were filed against him arising from the incident. The court had previously ruled that Stangel’s body-worn-camera footage could not be designated confidential.

The City and County moved to retain confidentiality designations for four categories of documents: incident reports concerning the October 6, 2019 incident; recorded witness statements; recorded statements of Richard’s boyfriend, Dacari Spiers; and recorded statements of Richard.

Court’s analysis

The court first considered whether disclosure would cause particularized harm, meaning a specific and identifiable risk rather than a general concern. The defendant argued that disclosure could taint the jury pool and compromise Stangel’s right to a fair trial. Unlike the body-camera footage, the documents had never been publicly disclosed and came from a confidential investigation. The court therefore found that the defendant had shown the required potential harm.

The court then balanced the public and private interests under the factors used to evaluate confidentiality requests. It found that the defendant had not tied its general privacy and embarrassment arguments to specific information in the documents. The defendant also did not address some factors, including whether the information was sought for an improper purpose and whether sharing information among the litigants would promote fairness and efficiency.

The court nevertheless recognized the public’s strong interest in police-force transparency, particularly when fundamental rights may be involved. It also recognized the public interest in a fair criminal prosecution, an impartial jury, and preserving the integrity of the police investigation. Because the criminal proceedings were ongoing and the civil case was stayed, the court concluded that the factors favored maintaining confidentiality for a limited period.

Ruling

The court vacated the November 18, 2021 hearing and granted the defendant’s motion to retain the confidentiality designation until the partial stay is lifted. The designation will expire 14 days after the court orders the stay lifted unless the defendant files a renewed motion on time. If such a motion is timely filed, the documents will remain confidential while the court decides it. The order disposed of Docket No. 47.