Dunsmore v. State of California

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO [14] SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY 15 DEPARTMENT, et al., and GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL 16 Defendants. 17 [Dkt. No. 724, 726, 738] [19] 20 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to maintain the confidentiality of 21 documents produced in discovery and designated as “Confidential” under the 22 Protective Order. Dkt. No. 724. Having considered the parties briefing and their 23 argument at the motion hearing on December 5, 2024, the motion is GRANTED 24 IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The parties also move to seal various exhibits 25 submitted in connection with the Motion. Dkt. Nos. 726, 738. For the reasons 26 stated on the record during the December 5 hearing, the motions to seal are 27 GRANTED. 28 / / / 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND 3 Plaintiffs are a certified class of individuals “who are now, or will be in the 4 future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities.” Dkt. No. 435 at 5 10. Their Third Amended Complaint asserts multiple causes of action under 42 6 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of San Diego and other defendants seeking 7 declaratory and injunctive relief to “remedy the dangerous, discriminatory, and 8 unconstitutional conditions in the Jail.” Dkt. No. 231, ¶ 4. 9 The stipulated Protective Order in this case (Dkt. No. 255) allows the parties 10 to designate materials produced in discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 11 “CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY.” The Protective Order limits the 12 dissemination of any materials so designated. Dkt. No. 255. Plaintiffs requested 13 that Defendants de-designate certain materials designated as confidential that are 14 incorporated into Plaintiffs’ expert reports. Defendants agreed to de-designate 15 certain materials but, with respect to the remaining materials, Defendants seek a 16 ruling that the documents are properly designated as confidential under the 17 Protective Order, and thereby maintain the existing limits on Plaintiffs’ ability to 18 disseminate those documents. 19 Defendants’ motion includes a chart summarizing the parties’ positions with 20 respect to categories of documents Plaintiffs contend should not be subject to the 21 Protective Order (e.g., “SDSO Inspection Reports” and “Grievances”). Dkt. No. 22 724 at 15-25. The chart also identifies the disputed documents by Bates Number. [23] Id. In the motion, Defendants grouped those categories into broader issues (e.g., 24 “Individual ‘medical records’” and “Decedent Records”). Id. at 3-11 . The parties 25 subsequently filed a revised chart and provided the Court with examples of the 26 disputed documents for in camera review. Dkt. No. 737. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Legal Standards 4 “As a general rule, the public is permitted access to litigation documents and 5 information produced during discovery.” In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland 6 in Or., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). “If a party takes steps to release 7 documents subject to a stipulated [protective] order, the party opposing disclosure 8 has the burden of establishing that there is good cause to continue the protection 9 of the discovery material.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (“The court may, 10 for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 11 embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.”). “A party asserting 12 good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of 13 showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” 14 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 The good cause inquiry proceeds in two steps. First, the Court “must 16 determine whether particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to 17 the public.” In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d at 424 . “Broad 18 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, 19 do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Id. Second, “if the court concludes that such 20 harm will result from disclosure of the discovery documents, then it must proceed 21 to balance the public and private interests to decide whether maintaining a 22 protective order is necessary.”1 Id. Where both factors “weigh in favor of [24] 25 1 The relevant factors in this balancing analysis are: “(1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2) whether the information is being sought for a [26] legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; (3) whether disclosure of the 27 information will cause a party embarrassment; (4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; (5) whether the [28] 1 protecting the discovery material,” “a court must still consider whether redacting 2 portions of the discovery material will nevertheless allow disclosure.” Id. at 425 . 3 B. Disputed Issues 4 This Order addresses the broader issues raised in Defendants’ motion and 5 also incorporates the parties’ chart with rulings for the documents provided to the 6 Court in camera. 7 1. CIRB Reports 8 The Court previously held that Defendants had not met their burden to 9 establish that documents generated by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department’s 10 Critical Incident Review Board (“CIRB”) are protected in their entirety by either the 11 attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and ordered Defendants to 12 produce the documents with limited redactions. Dkt. Nos. 468, 507. This issue is 13 before the Ninth Circuit in County of San Diego v. Greer, Court of Appeals No. 2314 55607. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to maintain the CIRB 15 Reports under the Protective Order without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ ability to seek 16 further relief following the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Greer. 17 2. Medical Information of Incarcerated Persons 18 Defendants contend that documents containing medical information 19 regarding living incarcerated persons should remain subject to the Protective 20 Order in their entirety. Plaintiffs agree that personally identifying information 21 should be redacted but argue that the records should be otherwise not be subject 22 to the Protective Order. 23 / / / [26] sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency; (6) 27 whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and (7) whether the case involves issues important to the public.” Id. at [28] 1 At step one of the “good cause” analysis, the Court finds that disclosure of 2 unredacted records pertaining to medical care would result in particularized harm 3 to the individuals receiving care. See In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland, [4] 661 F.3d at 424 . No party argues otherwise, as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ proposal 5 to redact the identifying information of living incarcerated persons. At step two, the 6 Glenmede factors support disclosure of information pertaining to medical care at 7 the San Diego County jails generally given that the provision of such care is 8 “relevant to public safety” and “implicate[s] issues important to the public.” 9 Johnson v. Coos Cnty., No. 6:19-CV-01883-AA, 2023 WL 3994287 , at *3 (D. Or. 10 June 14, 2023) (unsealing motion for sanctions with exhibits containing information 11 regarding private entity’s provision of healthcare to incarcerated persons). 12 The question, then, is “whether redacting portions of the discovery material 13 will nevertheless allow disclosure.” In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland, 661 14 F.3d at 425. The Court concludes that redacting incarcerated person names and 15 other identifying information from medical records will properly balance the public 16 interest in obtaining information regarding the provision of medical care at the jails 17 with the private interest of incarcerated persons in keeping their medical 18 information confidential. See id. at 424 (directing bankruptcy court to redact name 19 of retired priest from records relating to church sex abuse scandal because 20 “nothing in the record indicates that he continues working in the community” and 21 “victims can know that they are not alone, and church officials’ complicity in the 22 abuse can be revealed, without disclosing the identity of accused priests”). This 23 conclusion is bolstered by caselaw holding that, in the context of the Health 24 Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the California Confidentiality of 25 Medical Information Act, “[r]edacting individual patient identification information 26 addresses the legal restrictions on disclosure of patient health information.” 27 Lifschutz v. Am. Bd. of Surgery, No. EDCV141762FMOSPX, 2015 WL 13916604 , 28 at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015). Subject to such redactions, the motion to maintain 1 the confidentiality of these records is DENIED. 2 4. Custody Records of Decedents 3 The parties dispute whether custody records of individuals who died in 4 Sheriff’s Department custody can be de-designated. In another case involving a 5 death in a County jail, the Court determined that emails containing the names of 6 individuals who died in San Diego County jails should not be subject to a protective 7 order. See Est. of Serna v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 20-CV-2096-BAS-DDL, 2024 8 WL 3564460 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2024). The Court relied, in part, on information 9 provided by the County that its “current policy is to release certain information 10 regarding in-custody deaths, including the decedents’ names” and that the County 11 had not “established a particularized harm that would result from releasing the 12 three emails with in-custody death information to the public.” Id. at *4 . 13 Here, Defendants contend the privacy rights of family members of individuals 14 who died in custody weigh against de-designating the documents pertaining to the 15 deaths. But Defendants do not address the fact that the County already releases 16 information regarding in-custody deaths, including decedents’ names, as 17 represented in Estate of Serna. Id. Additionally, under a recently enacted 18 California law, “any record relating to an investigation conducted by the local 19 detention facility involving a death incident maintained by a local detention facility 20 shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant 21 to the California Public Records Act . . ..” Cal. Penal Code § 832.10 (b). Given that 22 the County releases information regarding in-custody deaths and that 23 § 832.10(b) requires the release of records pertaining to investigations of in24 custody deaths, the Court concludes, consistent with its ruling in Estate of Serna, 25 that the County has not shown a particularized harm that would result from 26 releasing that same information. Est. of Serna, 2024 WL 3564460 , at *4. 27 Moreover, the generalized concerns regarding family member privacy rights do not 28 establish good cause for maintaining the documents’ confidentiality under Ninth 1 Circuit law. See id. (citing In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 2 F.3d at 424 (“[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 3 articulated reasoning” insufficient to demonstrate good cause)). 4 The precise scope of the records at issue is unclear because Defendants’ 5 brief refers to “medical records of a deceased person” (Dkt. No. 724 at 5); however, 6 the exemplars submitted for in camera review include biographical information, 7 booking documents and court documents but not include medical records. See 8 Dkt. No. 737 at 3 (Exh. H, SD 704804-704813). It is Defendants’ burden to 9 establish “specific prejudice or harm” that would result from disclosure “for each 10 particular document [they] seek[] to protect.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 . That 11 Defendants did not submit medical records for the Court’s review weighs against 12 a finding of good cause. Even assuming the documents contain decedents’ 13 medical information, there is a strong public interest in information regarding in14 custody deaths, Johnson, 2023 WL 3994287 , at *3, and “an individual’s privacy 15 rights with regard to medical records is diminished after death.” Marsh v. Cnty. of 16 San Diego, No. CIV. 05CV1568 JLS AJB, 2007 WL 3023478 , at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17 15, 2007). As such, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that redaction of “information 18 about specific prior diagnoses or medications” unrelated to the death (Dkt. No. 728 19 at 10) strikes the appropriate balance between the public’s interest in the 20 information and individual privacy concerns. Subject to such redactions, the 21 motion to maintain the confidentiality of these records is DENIED. 22 5. Identities of Incarcerated Persons 23 Plaintiffs propose to redact the names of incarcerated persons from all the 24 records they seek to remove from the Protective Order. But Plaintiffs have neither 25 shown any particularized harm that would result from the disclosure of incarcerated 26 person names generally nor explained how the balancing of public and private 27 interests would weigh in favor of not disclosing names. See, e.g., Doe v. Bonta, [28] 101 F.4th 633, 637 (9th Cir. 2024) (names and other biographical data “do[] not 1 implicate the right to informational privacy”). As discussed at the December 5 2 hearing, the parties may elect to redact incarcerated person names from 3 information that is de-designated under the Protective Order prior to releasing any 4 such information, but the present record does not support a finding of good cause 5 to require redaction of incarcerated person names. 6 6. Identities of County Employees 7 Defendants assert that good cause exists to redact personal information, 8 including names, of County employees identified in documents produced in 9 discovery, citing the “right of privacy of the employees in performing their job 10 duties” and arguing that disclosure “serves no purpose other than trying the case 11 through the press.” Dkt. No. 724 at 8. Plaintiffs respond that names of peace 12 officers are not protected personnel records under California law and that such 13 information is also subject to disclosure under Penal Code § 832.10(b). Plaintiffs 14 further point out that prior filings in this case have included the names of County 15 employees. Dkt. No. 728 at 12 (citing Dkt. No. 621-2). 16 There exists “a right to informational privacy under the Fourteenth 17 Amendment stemming from an individual’s interest in avoiding disclosure of 18 personal matters.” Doe, 101 F.4th at 637 . However, “biographical data,” such as 19 names, “does not implicate the right to informational privacy.” Id. (affirming 20 dismissal of action challenging California statute authorizing disclosure of 21 identifying information about purchasers of firearms and ammunition and persons 22 holding permits to carry concealed weapons). California law does protect 23 “personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers” subject to certain 24 exceptions. See Cal. Penal Code § 832.7 . However, peace officers’ names do 25 not constitute “personnel records,” Comm’n on Peace Officer Standards & Training 26 v. Superior Ct., 42 Cal. 4th 278, 289 (2007), and thus they may be publicly 27 disclosed unless such disclosure would “link those names to any confidential 28 personnel matters or other protected information.” Long Beach Police Officers 1 Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 59 Cal. 4th 59, 73 (2014). Based on the foregoing 2 authorities, the Court concludes that Defendants’ blanket request to redact the 3 name of every County employee from the discovery materials irrespective of the 4 type of record does not find support in federal or state law.2 5 At the December 5 hearing, Defendants referred the Court to Macias v. City 6 of Clovis, No. 1:13-CV-01819-BAM, 2015 WL 7282841 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015). 7 Macias involved a discovery request by the plaintiff in a civil rights action for 8 disclosure of “the personnel files of each of the defendant officers including 9 documents containing social security numbers, dates of birth, drivers’ license 10 numbers, home addresses, financial and credit histories, resumes, medical and 11 psychological information.” Id. at *2 . The personnel files also included 12 “employment applications, background investigations, reassignment requests, 13 personal history statements, oaths of office, polygraph questionnaires, 14 performance evaluations, resignation letters, and affidavits of psychological 15 screenings all generated as part of the hire process at the Clovis Police 16 Department.” Id. The District Court balanced the public and private interests and 17 concluded “the balance tips in favor of ordering disclosure subject to a protective 18 order.” Id. at *8 . Thus, the documents would be disclosed to the plaintiff, but “in 19 light of the institutional concerns articulated by [d]efendants and the risks that the [21] 22 2 Defendants cite authority applying the Freedom of Information Act’s 23 exemption from disclosure for “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal [24] privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6). This exemption applies where there is “some 25 nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure,” and “[a] showing that the interest is more than de minimis will suffice.” Cameranesi v. United States Dep’t of Def., 856 26 F.3d 626, 637-38 (9th Cir. 2017). However, Defendants provide no authority for 27 the proposition that this statutory exemption provides the appropriate standard for evaluating whether they have established “particularized harm” sufficient to make [28] 1 ||indiscriminate public disclosure poses to police department operations and officer 2 ||safety,” the documents “will not be available for public dissemination.” /d. 3 Macias involved a discovery request for specific officer personnel files 4 ||containing a variety of sensitive information. /d. at *2. If this case presented a 5 || similar request for disclosure of sensitive personal information (e.g., social security 6 ||numbers, home addresses or employment applications), Macias would support 7 ||Defendants’ argument against public disclosure. But unlike Macias, Defendants 8 ||seek to redact employee names from every document at issue regardless of 9 ||whether the document contains sensitive or personnel information. See, e.g., Dkt. 10 ||No. 737 at 22 (citing disputed SDSO Notes 120522 — “Sergeant REDACTED 11 working on a staff study to convert a holding cell into sobering/safety cell and into 12 ||holding cell”). Macias does not support the blanket redactions of all employee 13 ||names irrespective of the documents at issue. The motion to maintain 14 || confidentiality of employee names is DENIED. 15 ill. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to maintain confidentiality 18 ||[Dkt. No. 724] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Rulings as to 19 ||specific documents or document categories are set forth in the attached chart, 20 ||which was submitted by the parties (Dkt. No. 737 at 12-33) and wherein the Court 21 ||has replaced the “Outcome” column with its rulings. The parties’ motions to seal 22 ||[Dkt. Nos. 726, 738] are GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record. 23 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: December 18, 2024 ait 25 Tb Lh, [26] Hon. David D. Leshner 27 United States Magistrate Judge [28] Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31091 Page 11 of 36 Dunsmore, et al. v. San Diego County Sheriff’s Dep’t, et al., 20-cv-0406-AJB-DDL ATTACHMENT TO ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SDSO Inspection SD_583777 (initial SD_583777 contains no Need redaction of employee The Court DENIES Defendants’ Reports bates number), information that is names because of their motion as to SD-583777 SD_654067 encompassed by any of the privacy rights and the because Defendants have not four categories in the propensity for false reporting shown that “particularized harm protective order at Dkt. 400, and potential harassment of will result from disclosure of Paragraph 4a, and it should employees. 654068 will not [the] information to the public.” be de-designated. Plaintiffs be designated. The specific In re Roman Cath. Archbishop agree that SD_654067 may identities and locations of of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d be redacted to protect the individuals is a security risk. 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). names and photos of incarcerated people. With It does not appear that the that information redacted, parties have provided the Court the document should be de- with SD_654067. designated. Grievances SD_841287, The only potentially 841287 is a single page of a The Court DENIES Defendants’ SD_73941 protected information under grievance from 1/31/2023. motion to maintain the the protective order are the Please confirm author was in documents under the protective names, birthdates, and class and permission was order in their entirety because booking numbers of obtained. Need redaction of Defendants have not shown that incarcerated people. With all employee names on both. “particularized harm will result that information redacted, from disclosure of [the] these documents should be information to the public.” Id. de-designated. The parties must redact dates of birth. [1] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31092 Page 12 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description Class Member Not applicable. Plaintiffs seek agreement Defendants will not make an The Court DENIES Defendants’ Medical Records that the parties’ experts can agreement as to deceased motion to maintain the (discussion thereof) refer to information and individuals. Defendants do documents under the protective quote from non-decedent not have the right to make order in their entirety because class members’ medical any decision about disclosing Defendants have not shown that records publicly, so long as individual medical records “particularized harm will result the class member’s name is and the request is a violation from disclosure of [the] not disclosed. For example, of the Court’s order that information to the public.” Id. the discussion in expert individual medical records be The parties must redact the reports or testimony of a disclosed confidential. Defts. names and other identifying given class member’s require written authorization information of individuals medical issues would not be from each person or a Court receiving medical treatment. confidential, so long as the order requiring disclosure in name is redacted. With the violation of law. Plaintiff name redacted, there is no must comply with Cal. individually identifiable Health & Safety Code section health information 123110 and 123105(e), protectable under the Catsouras v. Dept. of CHP, protective order. This 181 Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), approach has been used in and 45 CFR 160.103, similar cases, such as the paragraph (2)(iv) as to Jensen Arizona prison case. decedent records. SDSO Email SD_331805, Defendants mass-tagged all There were 123 items The Court DENIES Defendants’ Correspondence SD_556275, emails produced in the ESI originally listed. 31 were not motion because the documents SD_550498, production as confidential. emails, 27 have private submitted for in camera review SD_550530, The listed emails do not medical information, 76 were (Dkt. No. 737 at 3, Exhs. D and SD 113706, appear to include any de-designated and 1 is a E) do not demonstrate that [2] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31093 Page 13 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_440432, information protectable memo that state it must be “particularized harm will result SD_444419, under the protective order, destroyed after read from disclosure of [the] SD_547833, with the exception of some referencing the contents of a information to the public.” Id. SD_654107, emails with individually sealed court order. Despite Defendants have not submitted SD_661839, identifiable health the claim that death reports any draft emails for the Court’s SD_351122, information about were removed, they remain a in camera review, and SD_397590, incarcerated people. For part of the identified Defendants have not explained SD_556249, such emails, Plaintiffs documents. They are subject how disclosure of drug SD_422647, propose redacting the names to Cal. Health & Safety Code interdiction team reports would SD_670246, and identifying information section 123110 and result in particularized harm. It SD_674265, (such as booking numbers) 123105(e), Catsouras v. does not appear that either party SD_259265, of incarcerated people. The Dept. of CHP, 181 has provided the Court with a SD_354832, names of decedents should Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and example of the disputed “death SD_667926, not be redacted because the 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph reports.” Defendants must show SD_664776, Sheriff’s Department (2)(iv). There are draft “for each particular document” SD_422647, publicly announces the documents (not emails) they seek to protect “that SD_661601, identities of people who die. which will not be de- specific prejudice or harm will SD_663501, Plaintiffs do agree to designated under Govt. Code result if no protective order is SD_654059, redacting medical section 6255. There are granted.” Foltz v. State Farm SD_663908, information about decedents confidential reports of the Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d SD_666127, not related to their deaths. drug interdiction team that 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). SD_663558, With those redactions to will not be de-designated. Given the absence of this SD_661735, applicable emails, the emails There is a draft email from information, Defendants’ SD_670158, should be de-designated. Commander Soto-Meza to motion is DENIED. SD_672195, Indeed, Defendants have herself. It is protected under SD_669715, agreed to de-designate other Gov. Code section 6255. SD_661900, SDSO emails produced in SD_670326, this case. See, e.g., SD_265287, SD_550334, SD_550488, SD_444419, SD_555565. The Sheriff’s [3] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31094 Page 14 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_649702, Department also produced SD_649704, many emails to Plaintiffs’ SD_649706, counsel in response to SD_649707, Public Records Act requests. SD_649708, SD_649710, Following meet and confer, SD_647265, Plaintiffs removed death SD_337577, records inadvertently SD_663908, included in this category. SD_663558, The documents in this list SD_661735, are emails and attachments SD_670158, to emails, and Plaintiffs SD_672195, maintain their position as to SD_669715, those documents. SD_661900, SD_429591, SD_670326, SD_265287, SD_444419, SD_649702, SD_649704, SD_649706, SD_649707, SD_674265, SD_337577, SD_339036, SD_338723, SD 338964, [4] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31095 Page 15 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_339121, SD_252598, SDSO Texts and SD_1525701, These messages do not 1525701 contains private text The Court DENIES Defendants’ Teams Messages SD_1572826, include any information messages that should have motion to redact employee SD_1572652, covered by the protective been deleted but were not. names because Defendants have SD_1572813, order. In the text message We will de-designate all not shown that “particularized SD_1572814, page, Plaintiffs propose phone numbers, the private harm will result from disclosure SD_1572660, redacting the phone numbers exchange and employee of [the] information to the SD_1572656 of any individuals who are names for the above reasons. public.” In re Roman Cath. not Sheriff’s Department Archbishop of Portland in Or., employees to protect their 661 F.3d at 424 . privacy. These documents should be de-designated with those redactions. CLERB SD_50653, The only potentially CLERB Board Rules & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Investigation SD_50663, protected information under Regulations mandate motion to maintain the Reports SD_50607, the protective order are the confidentiality of all documents under the protective SD_50642, names and any other complaints, personnel order in their entirety because SD_469458, information regarding records, information from Defendants have not shown that SD_50668, incarcerated people other either or any other “particularized harm will result SD_399432, than the decedent who were information protected by law. from disclosure of [the] SD_548059, involved in each death (Sections 8, 14.6) In addition, information to the public.” Id. SD_50634, investigation (i.e. as Cal. Health & Safety Code The parties may agree on SD_50690, witnesses, suspects, etc.). sections 123110 and redactions, but the Court does SD_50674, This is consistent with Cal. 123105(e), Catsouras v. not order that any portions be SD_50619, Penal Code § 832.10, which Dept. of CHP, 181 redacted. SD_50683, makes investigations into Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and jail deaths available as [5] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31096 Page 16 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_50647, public records. If that 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph SD_50678 information is available as a (2)(iv). public record, it need not be kept confidential in this litigation. Plaintiffs are also amenable to redacting photographs that include the face of the decedent. The Sheriff’s Department makes the names of decedents and information about their deaths publicly available, including in news releases and on their website. These documents should be dedesignated with the redactions described above. Custody Records of SD_574, SD_547, The only potentially Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Decedents SD_51385, protected information under Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the SD_620, the protective order and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective SD_51257, regarding the decedent are Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because SD_1022, the dates of birth, home Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that SD_51002, addresses, telephone 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result SD_1046, SD_754, numbers, and drivers license (2)(iv). from disclosure of [the] SD_51184, (or other ID) numbers of information to the public.” Id. SD_704804, decedents that appear in The parties must redact dates of SD_652, these records. The names birth, home addresses, and SD_436666, and any identifying driver license (or other ID) SD 50911, information regarding [6] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31097 Page 17 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_51057, incarcerated people other numbers of decedents and SD_638, than the decedent who incarcerated persons. SD_51023, appear in these custody SD_51184, records may also be SD_50948 redacted. Plaintiffs are amenable to redacting photos that identify the faces of any incarcerated person. These documents should be de-designated with that information redacted. CIRB Reports The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to CIRB Reports, which shall remain subject to the Protective Order pending the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Greer v. County of San Diego. Jon Montgomery SD_55712, The only potentially Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Statements Re: SD_55254, protected information under Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the Deaths SD_55387, the protective order are the and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective SD_337295, names and any other Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because SD_55159, individually identifiable Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that SD_55675, information regarding 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result SD_252598, incarcerated people other (2)(iv). from disclosure of [the] SD_55886, than the decedent who were information to the public.” In re SD_638, involved in each death Roman Cath. Archbishop of investigation (i.e. as Portland in Or., 661 F.3d at 424 . [7] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31098 Page 18 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_55301, witnesses, suspects, etc.), The parties must redact (1) dates SD_55655 unless that information is of birth, home addresses, and already public. These driver license (or other ID) documents should be de- numbers of decedents and designated with that incarcerated persons and (2) information redacted. prior diagnoses and medications unrelated to the decedent’s death. Homicide Unit SD_60986, The only potentially Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Files Related to SD_61444, protected information under Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the Decedents SD_61008, the protective order and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective SD_49170, regarding decedents are the Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because SD_44420, dates of birth, home Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that SD_46505, addresses, telephone 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result SD_60582, numbers, and drivers license (2)(iv). There is no right to from disclosure of [the] SD_41849, (or other ID) numbers of any records beyond what is information to the public.” Id. SD_711503, decedents that appear in allowed by Penal Code The parties must redact (1) dates SD_41623, these records. The names §832.7. of birth, home addresses, and SD_41475, and other identifying driver license (or other ID) SD_45307, information regarding numbers of decedents and SD_42389, incarcerated people other incarcerated persons and (2) SD_46137, than the decedent who prior diagnoses and medications SD_49218, appear in these custody unrelated to the decedent’s SD_721931, records may also be death. SD_722730, redacted. This is consistent SD_43860, with Cal. Penal Code § SD 52465, 832.10. Plaintiffs are [8] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31099 Page 19 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_43190, amenable to redacting SD_49218, photos that identify the faces SD_55779, of any incarcerated person. SD_51451, These documents should be SD_51785, de-designated with the SD_49340, redactions described above. SD_42557, SD_41849, SD_43645, SD_42821, SD_45037, SD_43190, SD_42001, SD_46505, SD_49511 Case Review PPTs SD_55395, The only potentially Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ for Decedents SD_55222, protected information under Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the SD_55681, the protective order and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective SD_25832, regarding decedents are their Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because SD_26049, dates of birth. The names Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that SD_447297, and other identifying 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result SD_55670, information regarding (2)(iv). from disclosure of [the] SD_55891, incarcerated people other information to the public.” Id. SD_337297, than the decedent who The parties must redact (1) dates SD_55716, appear in these custody of birth, home addresses, and SD_25668, records may also be driver license (or other ID) SD_25742, redacted. This is consistent numbers of decedents and SD_25805, with Cal. Penal Code § incarcerated persons and (2) SD 55325, 832.10. Plaintiffs are prior diagnoses and medications [9] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31100 Page 20 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_55368, amenable to redacting unrelated to the decedent’s SD_25720, photos that identify the faces death. SD_55915 of any incarcerated person. These documents should be de-designated with the redactions described above. Area Activities SD_710839, The only potentially Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Summary Reports SD_617, SD_635, protected information under Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the for Decedents SD_1043, the protective order and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective SD_1065, SD_649, regarding decedents are their Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because SD_1016, SD_1046 dates of birth, which may be Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that redacted. The names and 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result other identifying (2)(iv). from disclosure of [the] information regarding information to the public.” Id. incarcerated people other The parties must redact dates of than the decedent who birth, home addresses, and appear in these custody driver license (or other ID) records may also be numbers of decedents and redacted. This is consistent incarcerated persons. with Cal. Penal Code § 832.10 . These documents should be de-designated with the redactions described above. Rescue Reports for SD_25749, The only potentially Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Decedents SD_232684 protected information in Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the these documents under the and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective protective order are the Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because [10] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31101 Page 21 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description decedents’ dates of birth, Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that which may be redacted. 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result These documents should be (2)(iv). from disclosure of [the] de-designated with that information to the public.” Id. information redacted. The parties must redact dates of birth of decedents. Incident Reports for SD_60616, Based on Plaintiffs’ review, Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Decedents SD_710839, the only potentially Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the SD_719547, protected information under and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective SD_711503, the PO are the names and Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because SD_337577, any other individually Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that SD_25671, identifiable information 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result SD_339036, regarding incarcerated (2)(iv). from disclosure of [the] SD_55655, people other than the information to the public.” Id. SD_338964, decedent who were involved SD_55886, in each death investigation SD_339121, (i.e. as witnesses, suspects, SD_55254, etc.). These documents SD_723620, should be de-designated SD_55362, with that information SD_55843, redacted. This is consistent SD_25790, with Cal. Penal Code § SD_55308, 832.10. SD_55802, SD_55944, SD_55787, SD_55387, SD_55880, SD 55147, [11] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31102 Page 22 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_25901, SD_55242, SD_55745, SD_55277, SD_55655, SD_55676, SD_55308, SD_55186, SD_337221, SD_55900, SD_337258, SD_55802, SD_339121 Corrective Action SD_704026 This document does not It will be de-designated with The Court DENIES Defendants’ Plans from Facility appear to include any employee identifying motion to redact employee Inspections information protectable information removed. names because Defendants have under the protective order, not shown that “particularized and was included as part of harm will result from disclosure the mass-tagged ESI of [the] information to the production. This document public.” Id. should be de-designated. SDSO Notes SD_120522 This document does not 120522 will be de-designated The Court DENIES Defendants’ Documents appear to include any with employee name motion to redact employee information protectable removed. names because Defendants have under the protective order, not shown that “particularized and was included as part of harm will result from disclosure the mass-tagged ESI of [the] information to the public.” Id. [12] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31103 Page 23 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description production. This document should be de-designated. SDSO Disciplinary SD_583985, These documents do not The documents will not be The Court DENIES Defendants’ Documents SD_548180, appear to include de-designated. They are motion to maintain the SD_652477, information protectable subject to privacy rights that documents under the protective SD_652871, under the protective order. are not waivable. order in their entirety because SD_462197 To the extent they include Defendants have not shown that information protected by “particularized harm will result Penal Code 832.7, Plaintiffs from disclosure of [the] propose redacting names information to the public.” Id. and identifying information The parties must redact of the personnel alleged of identifying information for misconduct. These employees from any documents documents should be de- that constitute personnel records designated with that under Cal. Penal Code § 832.7 information redacted. and are not otherwise subject to public disclosure under Cal. 9/30: At the 9/26 meet and Penal Code § 832.10. confer, Plaintiffs additionally proposed redacting any information about non-jail-related misconduct. SDSO Directive SD_213158, These documents are All of the cited documents The Court DENIES Defendants’ and Policy SD_183103, directives and policy-related are drafts and will not motion to maintain the Documents SD_332209, documents prepared by the pursuant to Govt. Code documents under the protective SD_332206, Sheriff’s Department. They section 6255. order in their entirety because SD 183086, do not appear to include any Defendants have not shown that [13] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31104 Page 24 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_183099, information protectable “particularized harm will result SD_183068, under the protective order. from disclosure of [the] SD_332199, In addition, the Sheriff’s information to the public.” In re SD_332197, Department presented Roman Cath. Archbishop of SD_332212 publicly to CLERB on Aug. Portland in Or., 661 F.3d at 424 . 13,2024 about the screening directive discussed in SD_1579786, and the presentation is available at CLERB’s website. These documents should be dedesignated. Watch Commander SD_704672, Plaintiffs propose redacting The documents will not be The Court DENIES Defendants’ Logs SD_1521709, the names and booking de-designated. They contain motion with respect to SD_1523959 numbers of incarcerated employee names and employee names standing alone people in the watch assignments that alerts the because Defendants have not commander logs. The logs public and IP’s to the number shown that “particularized harm do not otherwise appear to of staff in specific areas will result from disclosure of include any information placing both staff and IP’s at [the] information to the public.” protectable under the risk. Redaction is not Id. protective order. These feasible. documents should be de- The parties must redact designated with the above- information indicating staffing described information assignments, including the redacted. number of deputies assigned to specific areas. MSD End of SD_352331, The only potentially For reasons stated above, the The Court DENIES Defendants’ Shift/Daily Reports SD_299693, protected information under Department will not agree to motion to maintain the [14] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31105 Page 25 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_339644, the protective order are the the public release of any documents under the protective SD_203047, names of incarcerated private health information order in their entirety because SD_291380 people. With those names and redaction is not feasible. Defendants have not shown that redacted, the documents do Removal of names and BN’s “particularized harm will result not include individually only is not sufficient. from disclosure of [the] identifiable health information to the public.” Id. information and should be The parties must redact the de-designated. names and other identifying information of individuals receiving medical treatment. SDSO Biweekly SD_425751 The only potentially Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ Area Report protected information under Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the the protective order are the and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective names and booking numbers Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because of incarcerated people. With Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that those names redacted, this 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result document should be de- (2)(iv). You will have to from disclosure of [the] designated. comply with the H&S code information to the public.” Id. section to obtain any of the records. SDSO Daily SD_639671 Plaintiffs propose redacting The information is derived The Court DENIES Defendants’ Intelligence Brief the names, booking from JIMS. In addition it motion to maintain the numbers, and other contains intelligence documents under the protective identifying information of information which may order in their entirety because incarcerated people and compromise security and Defendants have not shown that third parties. With those intelligence operations. “particularized harm will result [15] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31106 Page 26 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description redactions, this document There is no legitimate reason from disclosure of [the] should be de-designated. for designation and it will not information to the public.” Id. be de-designated. The document submitted for in camera review (SD_424197) does not appear to contain information that could compromise security and intelligence operations. Defendants’ argument that “[t]here is no legitimate reason for de-designation” seeks to assign the burden to Plaintiffs to justify de-designation, but it is Defendants’ burden to establish “that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 . Safety Check Log SD_1090340 This document does not The document will not be de- The Court DENIES Defendants’ appear to include any designated. It provides IP motion to maintain the information protectable information about where they documents under the protective under the protective order. are housed which is a order in their entirety because In addition, Defendants did security issue and there is no Defendants have not shown that not designate as confidential overriding public need to “particularized harm will result safety check audit have this type of information from disclosure of [the] documents, which include under Govt. code section information to the public.” In re the same type of information 6255. Roman Cath. Archbishop of found in these logs. See, Portland in Or., 661 F.3d at 424 . e.g., SD 818778, The document submitted for in [16] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31107 Page 27 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_818786. This document camera review (SD_1090340) should be de-designated. does not appear to contain any information that could compromise security. Division of SD_424197, Plaintiffs propose redacting 424197 and 704518: Please The Court DENIES Defendants’ Inspectional SD_436462, the names or identifying confirm that you represent all motion to maintain the Services Reports SD_704518 information of any of the IP’s involved and the documents under the protective incarcerated people and IP entries will be redacted to order in their entirety because third parties. With those remove all identifying Defendants have not shown that redactions, the documents information and de- “particularized harm will result do not include any designated. Anything from disclosure of [the] information protectable relating to employee injury information to the public.” Id. under the protective order alone will be redacted in its The parties must redact the and should be de-designated. entirety. 704518: Please names and other identifying confirm that you represent all information of third parties and of the IP’s identified and all individuals receiving medical identifying information will treatment. In addition, the be redacted and produced. parties agree to redact information related to employee injuries. DIU Assault SD_440237, These documents do not The information is sensitive The Court DENIES Defendants’ Weapons Drugs SD_444210 include any information in nature to security issues, motion to maintain the Reports protectable under the possible methods of making documents under the protective protective order and should weapons, investigative tactics order in their entirety because be de-designated. and there is no overriding Defendants have not shown that need for public disclosure “particularized harm will result In 440237, Plaintiffs agree under Govt. Code section from disclosure of [the] with redacting slide 7 only. 6255. information to the public.” Id. [17] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31108 Page 28 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description In 444210, Plaintiffs agree The parties must redact (1) the with redacting slide 4 and photographs in SD_440243 and the “jail made weapons” SD_4440213, (2) the weapon stamp in slide 5. descriptions in SD_444214 and (3) the photographs in the top left and bottom right corners of SD_444216. Staffing Reports SD_556542, These documents are not The documents will not be The Court GRANTS SD_725946, encompassed by any of the de-designated. Allowing the Defendants’ motion to maintain SD_551333, categories in the protective public to see staffing levels in the documents under the SD_120294 order. Moreover, defendants specific areas of jails presents protective order because the have not designated other a risk to staff and IP’s. There documents reflect staffing levels staffing reports confidential, is no overriding public need in specific areas of the jails. including for example, for disclosure under Govt. SD_726781. These Code section 6255. documents should be dedesignated. Incident Report Log SD_113833 Based on Plaintiffs’ review, All of the information is The Court DENIES Defendants’ the only potentially subject to the protective order motion to maintain the protected information under and there is no feasible way documents under the protective the PO are the names, dates to do redactions. There is no order in their entirety because of birth, and booking overriding public need for Defendants have not shown that numbers of incarcerated disclosure under Govt. Code “particularized harm will result people. With that section 6255. from disclosure of [the] information redacted, this information to the public.” Id. documents should be de- Given the information contained designated. in SD_113833, the parties must redact dates of birth. [18] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31109 Page 29 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description Rosters or Sick Call SD_838061, Plaintiffs propose redacting Defendants will not de- The Court DENIES Defendants’ Reports with SD_742289, the names and other designate without motion to maintain the Names SD_742290, individually identifiable confirmation that all documents under the protective SD_1575333, information. With names individuals on the list are order in their entirety because SD_117766, and identifying information Plaintiffs’ clients and Defendants have not shown that SD_724109, redacted, these documents Plaintiffs provide written “particularized harm will result SD_630574, do not include any permission of the individuals from disclosure of [the] SD_117761, information protectable to disclose their private information to the public.” Id. SD_117764,SD_15 under the protective order health information. There is The parties must redact the 19379-1519380, and should be de-designated. no “redactions” exception to names and other identifying SD_723737, HIPPA. information of individuals SD_1517083, receiving medical treatment. SD_1575978, SD_1575334,SD_1 65179, SD_727537, SD_727536, SD_727538, SD_727528, SD_727540, SD_115604, SD_115601, SD_115606 Jon Montgomery Volume I, 66:7- In Volume I of the transcript, Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Deposition 87:10 Defendants designated as Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the confidential discussions of and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective incarcerated person deaths. Dept. of CHP, 181 order because Defendants have The names and information Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and not shown that “particularized about the deaths of the harm will result from disclosure [19] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31110 Page 30 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description decedents are already made 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph of [the] information to the public by the Sheriff’s (2)(iv). public.” Id. Department. To the extent this information is not already public, there is a strong public interest in its disclosure. The entire transcript should be dedesignated. Occurrence Reports SD_228274, These documents are not Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ SD_253189 encompassed by any of the Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the categories in the protective and 123105(e), Catsouras v. documents under the protective order and should be de- Dept. of CHP, 181 order in their entirety because designated. Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result (2)(iv). from disclosure of [the] information to the public.” Id. The parties must redact the names and other identifying information of individuals receiving medical treatment unless the individual is deceased. Quality Assurance SD_1579823, These quality assurance Will be de-designated with The Court DENIES Defendants’ Presentations, SD_1579825, reports do not include any any names redacted of either motion to maintain the Agendas, Minutes SD_1579826, information protectable documents under the protective [20] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31111 Page 31 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_733789, under the protective order. staff or IP’s and medical order in their entirety because SD_735685, To the extent the reports information. Defendants have not shown that SD_733836, include identifying “particularized harm will result SD_729806, information about from disclosure of [the] SD_735807, incarcerated people, information to the public.” Id. SD_121367, Plaintiffs agree that SD_169500, identifying information SD_171533 should be redacted. In addition, Defendants have produced other quality assurance reports without a confidentiality designation. See, e.g., SD_114399, SD_114397, SD_108236, SD_114363, SD_114467, SD_114433, SD_114600. These documents should be de-designated. CLERB Complaint SD_450449 This document does not CLERB Board Rules & The Court DENIES Defendants’ appear to include any Regulations mandate motion to maintain the information protectable confidentiality of all document under the protective under the protective order, complaints, personnel order in its entirety because and was included as part of records, information from Defendants have not shown that the mass-tagged ESI either or any other “particularized harm will result production. This document information protected by law. from disclosure of [the] should be de-designated. (Sections 8, 14.6) Defendants information to the public.” Id. Defendants’ new argument cannot agree to de-designate. The parties must redact in the chart refers to complainant names and restrictions on what CLERB addresses if that information is [21] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31112 Page 32 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description can do, not Defendants. As not already available to the Plaintiffs’ brief indicates, the public. information in this particular complaint is already in the public record. Letters re: SD_118472, These documents do not Defendants will not de- The Court DENIES Defendants’ Treatment at Jail SD_118454 appear to include any designate without motion to maintain the information protectable confirmation that all documents under the protective under the protective order, individuals who authored the order in their entirety because and were included as part of documents approve. Defendants have not shown that the mass-tagged ESI Defendants have no “particularized harm will result production. In addition, information about the intent from disclosure of [the] SD_118454 shows the of any of the drafters. information to the public.” Id. writer’s intent to share the The letter submitted as Exhibit information widely, M to the Grunfeld Declaration including with news (Dkt. No. 727 at 354) indicates organizations. These that it was sent to multiple third documents should be de- parties, including news designated. organizations. SDSO Meeting SD_183088, These meeting agendas and The description is inaccurate. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Agendas and SD_733277, rosters do not include the They include private medical motion to maintain the Rosters SD_733606, names of individual information and are not documents under the protective SD_733632, incarcerated people, or any generic agendas and rosters. order in their entirety because SD_733612, other information The documents will be de- Defendants have not shown that SD_733581, protectable under the designated with all employee “particularized harm will result SD_733643, protective order. Defendants names and IP information from disclosure of [the] SD_733588, also did not designate including personal medical information to the public.” Id. SD_735473, confidential similar information redacted. The parties must redact the [22] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31113 Page 33 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description SD_731369, documents, such as identities of any incarcerated SD_732823, SD_114396. These persons whose personal medical SD_732809, documents should be de- information is contained in the SD_732834, designated. records. SD_168053, SD_730546, SD_167863, SD_730772, SD_730756, SD_733307, SD_188571, SD_556276, SD_637671 Homicide Report SD_442998 Plaintiffs propose redacting Based upon Cal. Health & The Court DENIES Defendants’ the first two pages and Safety Code section 123110 motion to maintain the otherwise de-designating and 123105(e), Catsouras v. document under the protective this document, which Dept. of CHP, 181 order in its entirety because discuss deaths of individuals Cal.App.4th 856 (2010), and Defendants have not shown that not related to the Jail. The 45 CFR 160.103, paragraph “particularized harm will result information on the third (2)(iv). The information is from disclosure of [the] page regarding deaths at the also subject to Penal Code information to the public.” Id. Jail is made public in the §832.7. The parties must redact the first Sheriff’s Department’s two pages of the document. CIRB summaries, at https://www.sdsheriff.gov/re sources/transparencyreports. [23] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31114 Page 34 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description Sick Call List SD_320377 Plaintiffs propose redacting The document qualifies as a The Court DENIES Defendants’ the names, booking medical record subject to the motion to maintain the numbers, birth dates, and individuals’ names who document under the protective any identifying information appear and is subject to order in its entirety because of the incarcerated people in privacy rights and HIPPA. Defendants have not shown that this document. With that The document will not be de- “particularized harm will result information redacted, the designated. from disclosure of [the] document does not include information to the public.” Id. any information protectable The parties must redact the under the protective order names and other identifying and should be de-designated. information of individuals receiving medical treatment. Photographs from SD_744817- The parties agreed to a The photos removed before The Court DENIES Defendants’ Plaintiffs’ Experts’ 745551, procedure for Defendants to production were of particular motion to maintain the Inspections of Jail SD_745552- redact any photos with class sensitivity and the photos photographs under the Facilities (January, 745562, members’ faces or other produced were designated protective order because February, and May SD_742639- identifying features and to confidential because allowing Defendants have not shown that 2024) 743226, “remove any photos with them to be released to the “particularized harm will result SD_743927- content that compromises public without any attempt to from disclosure of [the] 744689, facility security” prior to narrow to a specific photo information to the public.” Id. SD_745563- production. Accordingly, allows the public to deduct The photographs provided by 745568, these photographs are not locations, layouts and Plaintiffs for the Court’s in SD_745569- encompassed by any of the security measures in the jails. camera review depict a day 745587, categories that the protective room and a recreation yard at SD_743227- order states merit protection common areas at George Bailey. 743926, as confidential or Defendants submitted SD 983511- confidential - for counsel approximately 1797 pages [24] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31115 Page 35 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description 983520, only. See Dkt. 400, ¶4a-b. pertaining to the Sanossian SD_983521- In addition, Defendants expert report for the Court’s in 983639, attached jail photographs to camera review, but Defendants SD_983640- public, unsealed filings in do not explain how disclosure of 983835, this case. See, e.g., Dkt. any of the photographs SD_1579294- 312, Exs. E-G. contained within those pages 1579679, would cause particularized SD_1579007- 9/30: Plaintiffs request that harm. 1579293 you de-designate photographs inserted into the text of expert reports and/or included in their appendices or exhibits. This would apply to the Graham, Stewart, Sanossian, and Snell reports and rebuttal reports, without prejudice to our right to seek the dedesignation of other inspection photographs in the future, and without waiver of your contention that they should not be dedesignated. Sheriff’s SD_652967 Plaintiffs dispute whether 652967 is a draft and will not The Court DENIES Defendants’ Department the document is a draft. It is be de-designated pursuant to motion to maintain the Detention Services a redline that shows the Govt. Code section 6255 document under the protective Bureau Policies and changes between a previous because there is no order in its entirety because Procedures Defendants have not shown that [25] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL Case 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL Document 785 Filed 12/18/24 PageID.31116 Page 36 of 36 Document Bates Number(s) Plaintiffs’ Position Defendants’ Position Court’s Ruling Description version of a policy and the overriding reason for “particularized harm will result new version of the policy. disclosure. from disclosure of [the] information to the public.” Id. [26] 20-cv-406-AJB-DDL