Bryant v. City of Berkeley
- Alex Tse
- 3:21-cv-08169
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bryant v. City of Berkeley, Judge Tse ordered the City to produce specified officer personnel and sustained Internal Affairs records under a protective order.
The City of Berkeley and the involved officers were required to produce specified personnel records and sustained Internal Affairs complaint records to Vincent Bryant, subject to the protective order.
What happened
In Bryant v. City of Berkeley, Vincent Bryant sought personnel records and Internal Affairs complaint records involving officers in his case. The City argued that the requested written discovery was privileged.
The court ruled that federal law governed the scope of privilege because Bryant brought a federal civil-rights claim. It found that the City had not submitted a sworn statement describing harms from disclosure, and that the existing protective order sufficiently addressed privacy concerns. The court also found the requested records relevant.
The court granted Bryant’s motion to compel production. The City of Berkeley was ordered to produce specified personnel records and sustained Internal Affairs complaints by February 6, 2024, but the court did not require production of all Internal Affairs complaints. Judge Alex G. Tse issued the order.
The detailed version
- Bryant v. City of Berkeley · No. 3:21-cv-08169
- Alex Tse
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
This discovery order concerns Vincent Bryant’s request for officer personnel records and Internal Affairs complaints. Bryant alleges state and federal claims, including a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a claim under the Fourth Amendment. The City of Berkeley argued that the requested written discovery was privileged.
Privilege and Discovery Analysis
The court explained that federal law governs the scope of an evidentiary privilege in a federal civil-rights action. Personnel files can be discoverable in federal-question cases despite claims of privilege. The City could assert a qualified federal privilege for official information, but asserting that privilege required a declaration or affidavit addressing the potential harms of disclosure.
The defendants submitted no sworn evidence of harm. The court also found that the stipulated protective order already in place was sufficient to address privacy interests. In addition, the court found the requested discovery relevant to Bryant’s claims.
Order
The court granted Bryant’s motion to compel production of written discovery. By February 6, 2024, and subject to the applicable protections in the stipulated protective order, the City of Berkeley had to produce:
- For defendant officers, personnel-file materials concerning training, assignments, fitness for duty, and experience.
- For defendant officers, records of sustained Internal Affairs complaints during the five years before the incident, from January 1, 2015, through January 21, 2021, concerning use of force, honesty, or veracity.
- For percipient officers, records of sustained Internal Affairs complaints during the same period concerning honesty or veracity.
The court declined to expand production to all Internal Affairs complaints and limited the required production to sustained complaints.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.