overruling privilege claim where defendant did not 18 submit appropriate declaration
How later courts described this case
- overruling privilege claim where defendant did not 18 submit appropriate declaration
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SERNOFFSKY et al, Case No.: 23-CV-39-MMA(WVG)
12 Plaintiffs,
ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY
13 v. CONFERENCE
14 NOVAK et al,
15 Defendants.
16
17
18 On August 3, 2023, Plaintiffs raised a discovery dispute with the Court. (ECF No.
19 22.) Plaintiffs sought to compel the production of redacted documents produced by
20 Defendants in response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (“RFPs”), No. 1, 2, and 4
21 propounded to Defendant Novak1, and attachments to emails withheld by Defendants
22 Novak, Aguilar, and Scott. The Court ordered briefing on the discovery dispute and
23 convened a discovery conference on August 18, 2023. (ECF No. 27.) Defendants also
24
25
1 Plaintiff propounded identical RFPs to Defendants Aguilar and Scott, although numbered
26
as RFP No. 3-6. Defendants Aguilar and Scott’s responses and the document production
27 were identical to Defendant Novak’s responses to RFP No. 1, 2, and 4 and document
production. Thus, this order equally applies to Defendants Aguilar and Scott’s document
28
1 submitted the unredacted documents in dispute for in camera review. Having reviewed
2 the Parties’ briefing, convened a discovery conference, and conducted an in camera review
3 of the documents in dispute, the Court addresses the redactions and withheld documents in
4 turn.
5 I. BACKGROUND
6 a. Scope of Limited Discovery Allowed
7 As a threshold matter, on June 16, 2023, the Court issued an order following a Case
8 Management Conference (“June 16, 2023 Order”, ECF No. 19.) During the Case
9 Management Conference, the Parties agreed that limited discovery focusing exclusively on
10 Defendant Novak’s decision to declare an unlawful assembly was the only discovery
11 needed to prepare summary judgment motions, especially since extensive discovery
12 already had been conducted in the related case of Mandy Lien, et al., v. City of San Diego
13 et al, No. 21-CV-224-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022). Accordingly, the Court
14 ordered “limited and targeted interrogatories or request for productions propounded by
15 Plaintiffs to Defendants, pertaining to Defendant Novak’s decision to declare an unlawful
16 assembly during the January 9, 2021 protests underlying Plaintiffs’ Complaint, shall be
17 completed no later than July 14, 2023.” Id. The order also required the Parties to contact
18 the chambers of Honorable Michael M. Anello no later than August 14, 2023 to obtain a
19 hearing date in light of the Parties’ representations they would be prepared to file summary
20 judgment motions. Id.
21 On August 17, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
22 24.) Plaintiffs contend the documents and redactions in dispute relate to the limited
23 discovery afforded by the Court’s June 16, 2023 Order and are necessary to oppose
24 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 29.
25 b. Redactions in Document Production and Withheld Email
26 Attachments
27 Defendants’ redactions to the document productions can be categorized into three
28 groups: (1) witness, suspect, and arrestee’s identifying or personal information, (2)
1 officer’s personal information, and (3) law enforcement techniques and procedures. These
2 redactions occur on pages COSD000369-370, COSD000371, COSD000372-74,
3 COSD000376, COSD000387-388, COSD000389, COSD000396, COSD000400-13,
4 COSD000414, COSD000464, COSD000475-480, and COSD000481-487.
5 Defendants also withheld attachments to emails that were produced, on the same
6 basis of the official information privilege, the law enforcement privilege, and third-party
7 privacy. The withheld email attachments were Bates stamped COSD000502-504,
8 COSD000505-507, COSD000508-511, COSD000512-515, COSD000516, COSD000517-
9 518, COSD000519-520, COSD000521-25, COSD000526-29.
10 Defendant produced a privilege log identifying the redactions and email attachments
11 withheld. Defendants argue the redactions and failure to produce the email attachments are
12 proper based on the official information privilege, the law enforcement privilege, and third-
13 party privacy rights. Defendants also argue the redactions and email attachments are proper
14 because the information sought by Plaintiffs have no relevance to the limited discovery
15 agreed to between the Parties and authorized by the Court’s June 16, 2023 Order.
16 In turn, Plaintiffs argue the information sought is highly relevant to Defendant
17 Novak’s decision to declare an unlawful assembly and the redactions are improper in light
18 of this case’s Protective Order and Defendants’ use of the “Confidential - Attorney’s Eye’s
19 Only” designation for all the documents produced.
20 II. DISCUSSION
21 a. Official Information Privilege
22 “Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information.”
23 Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.1990). “In determining what
24 level of protection should be afforded by this privilege, courts conduct a case by case
25 balancing analysis, in which the interests of the party seeking discovery are weighed
26 against the interests of the governmental entity asserting the privilege.” Soto v. City of
27 Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995). This balancing approach is “moderately
28 pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.” Id. Defendants bears the burden of establishing the
1 official information privilege applies. Shiflett by and through Davenport v. City of San
2 Leandro, No. 21-cv-7802-LB, 2023 WL 4551077, at *2 (N. D. Cal. July 13, 2023).
3 The party asserting the privilege must make a “substantial threshold showing.” Soto,
4 162 F.R.D. at 613. “[T]o fulfill the threshold requirement, the party asserting the privilege
5 must submit a declaration or affidavit from a responsible official with personal knowledge
6 of the matters to be attested to in the affidavit.” Id. The affidavit must include:
7
(1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the material in
8 issue and has maintained its confidentiality; (2) a statement that the official
has personally reviewed the material in question; (3) a specific
9
identification of the governmental or privacy interests that would be
10 threatened by disclosure of the material to plaintiff and/or his lawyer; (4)
a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective
11
order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental
12 or privacy interests, and (5) a projection of how much harm would be done
to the threatened interests if disclosure were made.
13
14 Id. “If the nondisclosing party does not meet this initial burden, the court will order
15 disclosure of the documents; if the party meets this burden, the court generally conducts an
16 in camera review of the material and balances each party’s interests.” Rogers v. Giurbino,
17 288 F.R.D. 469, 481 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (overruling privilege claim where defendant did not
18 submit appropriate declaration).
19 Here, Defendants’ brief supplies a signed declaration from Defendant Novak to
20 fulfill its initial burden related to the redactions contained in COSD000475-480 and
21 COSD000481-489. Defendant Novak’s declaration appears to meet the five factors, as he
22 declares he is “employed by the San Diego Police Department[,]” is “currently assigned as
23 a Captain to Investigations 1 Unit[,]” that his “duties include the supervision and oversight
24 of the operations of that unit[,]” that he has personally reviewed the redactions at issue,
25 that the Contingency Plan contained in COSD000481-489 and After Action Report
26 contained in COSD000475-480 were both prepared by Lieutenant Rick Aguilar for
27 Defendant Novak, and the SDPD has maintained confidentiality of the redacted
28 information and documents withheld. (Novak Decl. at ¶¶ 2, 7, 19.) Defendant Novak then
1 details how the disclosure of the documents create a substantial risk of harm to law
2 enforcement interests. Id.
3 i. Contingency Plan - COSD000481-489 and After Action Plan -
4 COSD000475-480
5 With respect to the Contingency Plan contained in COSD000481-489, Defendant
6 Novak’s declaration details that the redactions need to remain because they contain (1)
7 confidential San Diego Police Department (SDPD) techniques and procedures for
8 addressing potential violence and unlawful civil disobedience at large political events –
9 including the number of officers and undercover detectives, locations of command posts,
10 modes of transportation for officer teams; monitoring tasks assigned to officer teams,
11 identities of detectives assigned to the event, the specific manner in which teams would
12 protect the public if the protestors became hostile or the crowd became too large for the
13 officers to effectively handle, the precise communications, including frequencies, that the
14 officers would use, the officer briefing and deployment schedule; (2) identifying
15 information for individuals who provide information to the SDPD and Criminal
16 Intelligence Unit (“CIU”) and victims of attacks related to the incident, which may
17 endanger these individuals; and (3) officer’s personal cellphone numbers which would
18 endanger the officers on and off-duty. (Novak Decl. at ¶¶4-6.)
19 With respect to the After Action Plan contained in COSD000475-480, Defendant
20 Novak’s declaration details that the redactions include (1) information related to techniques
21 and procedures the SDPD used to address the violence and unlawful civil disobedience that
22 occurred on January 9, 2022; (2) the officer teams who were assigned to particular tasks;
23 (3) the specific command post and deployment locations; (3) the mode of transportation of
24 each officer team; (4) the specific monitoring tasks and techniques utilized by each team
25 of officers to protect the officers and the general public from further violence; and (5) the
26 precise communications, including radio frequencies, that the officers used. (Novak Decl.
27 at 4.) Defendant Novak’s declaration also indicates redactions were made to the After
28 Action report related to the privacy rights of minors arrested or detained at the time of the
1 incident. (Id. at ¶10.) Defendant Novak’s declaration states disclosure of such information
2 even in light of a protective order would undermine SDPD’s investigatory procedures and
3 techniques and “seriously impair SDPD’s ability to conduct future investigations, thereby
4 endangering the safety of law enforcement personnel as well as San Diego residents”
5 because “SDPD would never know if its operations had been compromised by an
6 unauthorized disclosure of that information.” Id. Finally, Defendant Novak’s declaration
7 states such disclosure would discourage SDPD and other law enforcement agencies from
8 keeping records of their confidential techniques and procedures for completed operations.
9 Id.
10 Based on Defendant Novak’s declaration, the Court finds Defendants sufficiently
11 satisfied their initial burden to make a substantial threshold showing that the official
12 information privilege applies to the Contingency Plan contained in COSD000481-489 and
13 After Action Report contained in COSD000475-480, subject to three exceptions. The
14 Court has reviewed the Contingency Plan contained in COSD000481-489 and After Action
15 Report contained in COSD000475-480 in camera and concludes the redacted information
16 clearly relates to sensitive law enforcement techniques and procedures, and does not weigh
17 in favor of disclosure under the Protective Order, with the following exceptions: (1) the
18 name of the event organizer on COSD000475, COSD000481, COSD000482, and
19 COSD000486, (2) the Instagram handle for the counter-protest organizer listed on
20 COSD000482 and COSD000486; and (3) redactions on COSD000479-480 that are not
21 case numbers.
22 As to the name of the event organizer on COSD000475, COSD000481,
23 COSD000482, and COSD000486, and the Instagram handle for the counter-protest
24 organizer listed on COSD000482 and COSD000486, the Court is not persuaded that the
25 disclosure of the two identifying names under the Protective Order would undermine law
26 enforcement’s investigatory process, endanger police officers, or chill officer’s record
27 keeping duties, particularly as the identities of the protest and counter-protest organizations
28 could be readily procured from numerous other sources in light of the public nature of the
1 protests.
2 As to the redactions on COSD000479-480, with the exception of the redactions to
3 case numbers, the Court finds no risk to these individual’s privacy as the report vaguely
4 refers to the individuals as juveniles but does not provide any identifying information.
5 Based on the limited scope of discovery allowed at this point, Defendants are not
6 required to disclose the redactions contained in the Contingency Plan, bates stamped
7 COSD000481-489, and After Action Plan, bates stamped COSD000475-480, with the
8 exceptions of (1) the name of the event organizer on COSD000475, COSD000481,
9 COSD000482, and COSD000486, (2) the Instagram handle for the counter-protest
10 organizer listed on COSD000482 and COSD000486, and (3) redactions on COSD000479-
11 480 that are not case numbers.
12 ii. “Patriot March 1-9-2021.dox” Email Attachments Withheld
13 Additionally, Plaintiffs seek the production of attachments to emails bates stamped
14 COSD000380, COSD000415, COSD000420, COSD000441, and COSD000444-445, and
15 named “Patriot March 1-9-2021.dox”. Plaintiffs argue none of these attachments were
16 produced. During the August 18, 2023 discovery conference, Defendants’ counsel
17 represented that these attachments named “Patriot March 1-9-2021.dox” were earlier drafts
18 of the final Contingency Plan which has been produced to Plaintiffs. In light of Defendants’
19 prior production of the final Contingency Plan, the Court finds the previous drafts of the
20 Contingency Plan not relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations and does not order disclosure of
21 the attachments.
22 b. Law Enforcement Investigatory Privilege
23 Although the Ninth Circuit has not expressly recognized the law enforcement
24 privilege, several courts within this circuit have acknowledged and applied it. See Roman
25 v. Wolf, No. EDCV20-0768-TJH(PVC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213025, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
26 July 16, 2020), Jones v. Hernandez, No. 16-CV-1986 W (WVG), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
27 71378, at *8–10 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018); Roy v. County of Los Angeles, No. CV 12-
28 09012-AB (FFMx), 2018 WL 914773, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018); United States v.
1 Rodriguez-Landa, No. 13- cr-00484-CAS, 2019 WL 653853, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13,
2 2019).
3 The law enforcement investigatory privilege “serves to prevent disclosure of law
4 enforcement techniques and procedures, preserve the confidentiality of sources, protect
5 witnesses and law enforcement personnel, safeguard the privacy of individuals involved in
6 an investigation, and otherwise prevent interference with the investigation.” Moore v.
7 Garnand, No. CV19-0290-TUC-RM(LAB), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120496, at *6-7 (D.
8 Ariz. July 9, 2020) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (emphasis added); see also In
9 re Dep’t of Investigation, 856 F.2d 481, 484 (2d Cir. 1988); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D.
10 175, 176 (D.D.C. 1998), aff’d, 203 F.3d 53, 340 U.S. App. D.C. 183 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The
11 federal law enforcement privilege is a qualified privilege designed to prevent disclosure of
12 information that would be contrary to the public interest in the effective functioning of law
13 enforcement.”). “In order to assert the privilege, the following requirements must be met:
14 (1) there must be a formal claim of privilege by the head of the department having control
15 over the requested information, (2) assertion of the privilege must be based on actual
16 personal consideration by that official, and (3) the information for which the privilege is
17 claimed must be specified, with an explanation why it properly falls within the scope of
18 the privilege.” Roman v. Wolf, No. EDCV20-0768-TJH(PVC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
19 213025, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2020) (citing Landry v. F.D.I.C., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135
20 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).
21 Here, Defendants have met requirements set to assert the law enforcement privilege.
22 Defendants submitted a signed declaration from Defendant Novak, who is “employed by
23 the San Diego Police Department[,]” is “currently assigned as a Captain to Investigations
24 1 Unit[,]” that his “duties include the supervision and oversight of the operations of that
25 unit[,]” that he has personally reviewed the redactions at issue, and the SDPD has
26 maintained confidentiality of the redacted information and documents withheld. (Novak’s
27 Decl. at 1-2, ¶19.) Defendant Novak’s declaration then proceeds to detail the need for the
28 privilege and each redactions contained in COSD000369-370, COSD000371,
1 COSD000372-74, COSD000376, COSD000387-388, COSD000389, COSD000396,
2 COSD000400-13, and COSD000414. (Novak Decl. at ¶¶12-17.) Defendant Novak
3 declares the redactions are proper as they contain (1) confidential San Diego Police
4 Department (SDPD) techniques and procedures for addressing potential violence and
5 unlawful civil disobedience at large political events – including the number of officers and
6 undercover detectives, locations of command posts, modes of transportation for officer
7 teams; monitoring tasks assigned to officer teams, identities of detectives assigned to the
8 event, the specific manner in which teams would protect the public if the protestors became
9 hostile or the crowd became too large for the officers to effectively handle, the precise
10 communications, including frequencies, that the officers would use, the officer briefing and
11 deployment schedule; (2) arrest reports and related officer reports containing law
12 enforcement techniques and procedures that would undermine subsequent investigations if
13 disclosed; (3) identifying information for individuals who provide information to the
14 SDPD and Criminal Intelligence Unit (“CIU”) and victims of attacks related to the incident,
15 which may endanger these individuals; (4) officer’s personal cellphone numbers which
16 would endanger the officers on and off-duty; and (5) privacy rights of political figures
17 unrelated to the incident underlying this case. (Novak Decl. at 1-9.)
18 Safeguarding some of this information under these circumstances aligns with the
19 purpose of the law enforcement investigation privilege, however, the Court finds some
20 redactions were unwarranted, and orders disclosure as set forth below.
21 i. Redactions in Document Production
22 As to the redactions on COSD000369-370, COSD000387, COSD000388,
23 COSD000390, and COSD000393, the Court finds the redactions here are identical to the
24 redactions of (1) the name of the event organizer listed on COSD000475, COSD000481,
25 COSD000482, and COSD000486, and (2) the Instagram handle for the counter-protest
26 organizer listed on COSD000482 and COSD000486. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered
27 to disclose the name of the event organizer listed on COSD000369-370, COSD000387,
28 COSD000388, COSD000390, and COSD000393, and the Instagram handle for the
1 counter-protest organizer listed on COSD000370, COSD000387, COSD000388,
2 COSD000390, and COSD000393.
3 With respect to COSD000371, Defendant Novak’s declaration does not provide any
4 explanation as to why the fifteen email attachments were not produced. Accordingly, the
5 Court orders Defendants to produce the fifteen email attachments labeled “screenshots”
6 that were not attached to COSD000371.
7 As to the redaction of the witnesses name and contact information contained on
8 COSD000371, COSD000372, COSD000400, COSD000403, COSD000404,
9 COSD000408, COSD000409, COSD000411-12, the Court finds the witness name should
10 not be disclosed as it appears there may be an ongoing investigation and disclosure of such
11 information may endanger the victim.
12 As to the Instagram photos on COSD000410 and COSD000413Defendant Novak’s
13 declaration states disclosure of the redacted information could endanger the safety of
14 individuals reporting concerns about the upcoming January 9, 2021 protests or actions of
15 others observed during or in the days following the protests, and could undermine
16 confidential investigations. In light of the Defendants meeting their burden on the
17 investitive privilege here, disclosure is not proper.
18 However, as to the names of individuals in the text of the email and embedded in the
19 KUSI news articles and Facebook links, on COSD000372-374, COSD000401-402,
20 COSD000404-406, the Court finds no investigative privilege as those individual’s
21 identities appear to have been publicly posted on websites through their own accord.
22 ii. Email Attachments Withheld
23 The Court now turns to nine email attachments withheld by Defendants, bates
24 stamped COSD000502-504, COSD000505-507, COSD000508-511, COSD000512-515,
25 COSD000516, COSD000517-518, COSD000519-520, COSD000521-525, and
26 COSD000526-529. Here, in support of the law enforcement investigatory privilege,
27 Defendant Novak’s declaration states the nine email attachments were properly withheld
28 because they contain arrest reports, officer reports, and Vice Unit Investigator reports
1 concerning three suspects who were arrested for failing to disperse from the January 6,
2 2021 March area after the Unlawful Assembly order was issued. (Novak Decl. at ¶11.)
3 Defendant Novak’s declaration also contains confidential information relating to the
4 circumstances of each arrest, including law enforcement techniques and procedures used,
5 and private information including each suspect’s name, date of birth and address. Id.
6 Defendant Novak states the disclosure of such information which would endanger law
7 enforcement personnel, impair the ability of a law enforcement agency to conduct further
8 investigation, undermine the privacy of these suspects, and if the information was disclosed
9 on an “attorneys’ eyes only” basis, the same risks would remain if there was an
10 unauthorized disclosure of that information. Id.
11 The Court is not necessarily persuaded that Defendants have met their burden as to
12 the investigatory privilege for all nine of the withheld email attachments. In Lien, the
13 District Court found the privilege applied to internal documents maintained by the San
14 Diego Police Department relating to “an ongoing, pending criminal prosecution” and
15 “ongoing active criminal investigations” and affirmed the production of those documents
16 to the civil action plaintiffs with redactions to information identifying those individuals.
17 Mandy Lien, et al., v. City of San Diego et al, No. 21-CV-224-MMA (WVG), 2022 WL
18 134896, at **3-4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022). In Morton, the court found the privilege did not
19 apply because the San Diego Police Department failed to explain how redactions in CIRB
20 Reports subject to the existing Protective Order would be insufficient to protect the
21 integrity of any unspecified investigations or prosecutions. Marilyn Morton, et al., v.
22 County of San Diego, et al., No. 21-CV-1428-MMA-DDL, 2023 WL 6150402, at *11 (S.D.
23 Cal. Sept. 20, 2023).
24 Here, COSD000502-504, COSD000505-507, and COSD000508-511 are arrest
25 reports of individuals who did not disperse after Unlawful Assembly was declared on
26 January 9, 2021. (Novak Decl. at ¶ 11.) COSD000512-515, COSD000516, COSD000517-
27 518, COSD000519-520, COSD000521-525, and COSD000526-529 are officer reports and
28 Vice Unit Investigator reports concerning the three individuals who were arrested for
1 failing to disperse. Id. Although Defendant Novak’s declaration cites to the risk that
2 disclosure of such information would harm future investigations by revealing sensitive
3 police techniques or procedures, none of the reports reveal any such thing. Moreover, there
4 is no indication that law enforcement has any ongoing investigation or prosecution against
5 these three individuals. Nor does Defendant Novak’s declaration explain how redactions
6 to specific portions of the arrest reports would be insufficient to protect the integrity of any
7 unspecified investigations or prosecutions, or sensitive techniques and procedures for that
8 matter. See Morton, 2023 WL 6150402, at *11.
9 For these reasons, Defendants have not met their burden to establish that the law
10 enforcement investigatory privilege applies to COSD000502-504, COSD000505-507,
11 COSD000508-511, COSD000512-515, COSD000516, COSD000517-518, COSD000519-
12 520, COSD000521-525, and COSD000526-529. The Court does acknowledge the privacy
13 considerations of the individuals arrested; thus Defendants are ordered to produce
14 COSD000502-504, COSD000505-507, COSD000508-511, COSD000512-515,
15 COSD000516, COSD000517-518, COSD000519-520, COSD000521-525, and
16 COSD000526-529, subject to redactions related to personal identifying information,
17 including the names, addresses, date of birth, phone numbers, California driver’s license
18 numbers, California identification number, and social security numbers contained in the
19 arrest reports.
20 c. Privacy Privilege and Considerations
21 “Federal courts recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised
22 in response to discovery requests.” Carr v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 19-cv-1139-JLS-MDD,
23 2020 WL 7074881, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2020). “Resolution of a privacy objection ...
24 requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy right
25 asserted.” Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. “However, these privacy interests must be balanced
26 against the great weight afforded to federal law in civil rights cases against police
27 departments.” Id. “[P]rivacy objections can be appropriately addressed by: (1) redacting
28 any personal identifying information from the documents produced; and (2) producing
1 documents under a protective order to minimize any invasion into the individual's privacy
2 rights.” Stuart v. Cnty. of Riverside, No. 522CV701SPGMAR, 2023 WL 4826231, at *2
3 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2023).
4 Although Plaintiffs argue the names of witnesses and officer’s cellphone numbers
5 are relevant to Plaintiffs’ liability claims, the Court is not inclined to find disclosure
6 warranted at this stage in the litigation, in light of the limited scope of discovery allowed.
7 Specifically, Plaintiffs argue they need the cellphone numbers to subpoena text messages
8 and call logs on the day of the incident. Clearly the use of the cellphone numbers on
9 subpoenas would extend beyond the “Attorney’s Eyes-Only” designation and risks such
10 information disclosed into the public. Courts in this district have held that to the extent
11 government reports contain personal identifiable information regarding law enforcement
12 employees (other than their names and titles) such as marital status, spouse names,
13 children’s names, driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers and home addresses,
14 defendants may redact that information. MARILYN MORTON, et al. Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY
15 OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Joseph Morton, No. 21-CV-
16 1428-MMA-DDL, 2023 WL 6150402, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2023) (citing to Stuart,
17 2023 WL 4826231, at **3-4). Accordingly, the Court declines to order disclosure of
18 officer’s cellphone numbers contained on COSD000370, COSD000388, COSD000389,
19 COSD000390, COSD000393, and COSD000484-486.
20 Regarding the redactions of political figures unrelated to the incident underlying this
21 case on COSD000414, the names of the public political figures and the addresses of these
22 individuals are neither relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims nor do they warrant disclosure.
23 However, the Court does not find the other redactions contained on COSD000414 to
24 warrant preclusion of disclosure. Defendants are ordered to produce COSD000414 with
25 redactions limited to only the names and addresses of the political figures.
26 As to the redactions on COSD000376, the Court finds the names and dates of birth
27 of the individuals arrested in connection with the January 9, 2021 protests to have been
28 properly redacted.
1 As to the redactions contained on COSD000396, COSD000464, the Court agrees
2 that the privacy rights of individuals entirely unrelated to the January 9, 2021 protests,
3 referenced in investigations or reports do not warrant disclosure. As to COSD000396, this
4 individual’s report that she saw an online post about the January 9, 2021 protest has little
5 relevance beyond the fact the information was passed on to SDPD.
6 III. CONCLUSION
7 The Court orders Defendant to:
8 1. Disclose the name of the event organizer listed on COSD000369-370,
9 COSD000387, COSD000388, COSD000390, COSD000393, COSD000475,
10 COSD000481, COSD000482, and COSD000486.
11 2. Disclose the Instagram handle for the counter-protest organizer listed on
12 COSD000370, COSD000482, COSD000486, COSD000387, COSD000388,
13 COSD000390, and COSD000393.
14 3. Produce COSD000479-48, with redactions limited to only the case numbers.
15 4. Produce the fifteen email attachments labeled “screenshots” that were not
16 attached to COSD000371.
17 5. Disclose the names of individuals in the text of the email and embedded in the
18 KUSI news articles and Facebook links, on COSD000372-374, COSD000401-
19 402, COSD000404-406.
20 6. Produce COSD000502-504, COSD000505-507, COSD000508-511,
21 COSD000512-515, COSD000516, COSD000517-518, COSD000519-520,
22 COSD000521-525, and COSD000526-529, subject to redactions related to
23 personal identifying information, including the names, addresses, date of birth,
24 phone numbers, California driver’s license numbers, California identification
25 number, and social security numbers contained in the arrest reports.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
l 7. Produce COSD000414 with redactions limited to only the names and addresses
2 of the political figures.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 ||Dated: September 29, 2023
A Ss
6 Hon. William V. Gallo
7 United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28