Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff John Williams, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 8, 2021. The action stems from allegations that on August 5, 2019, Defendant Oaks stabbed him with a metal handcuff key, repeatedly kicked him, and pepper sprayed him, while Defendant Pascoe stood by and watched. Williams further alleges that Defendants Oaks, Pascoe, Riddle, Beer, Garcia, and Cubos were aware of his resulting injuries—including bleeding, pain, and burning sensations—but failed to provide or summon medical care.
After screening, Williams elected to proceed on Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force against Oaks, failure to protect against Pascoe, sexual assault against Oaks, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against all defendants. The court opened discovery on August 22, 2025. Following an unsuccessful settlement conference on July 10, 2026, the court issued an amended scheduling order that included deadlines for briefing various motions to compel.
On March 30, 2026, Williams filed a motion to compel Defendant Pascoe to provide further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, specifically Request Nos. 13 and 14. Request No. 13 sought emails sent to any defendant by investigative employees regarding a Rules Violation Report. Request No. 14 sought documents showing advisements, warnings, and instructions on the usage of MK-4 oleoresin capsicum (OC) pepper spray in effect on August 5, 2019. Defendant Pascoe opposed the motion, arguing her responses were sufficient and asserting the official information privilege as to staff training materials.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion to compel as to Request for Production No. 13, finding that Defendant Pascoe provided a legally adequate response. Pascoe produced a September 27, 2019 email from Correctional Officer S. Cristena and submitted a declaration from defense counsel Arthur B. Mark, III, who stated under penalty of perjury that he conducted keyword searches of all defendants' CDCR email accounts for the relevant time period and found no other responsive documents. The court found the search terms sufficiently broad and noted that Williams had not argued the search terms were insufficient or proposed additional terms.
The court granted the motion in part as to Request for Production No. 14, overruling in part Defendant Pascoe's assertion of the official information privilege. After conducting an in camera review of the CDCR In-Service Training presentation on Chemical Agents, Version 2.5, the court ordered production of specific pages—DEF 687-88 (Section II, Overview of Chemical Agents, including subsections on Improper Use, Appropriate Use, and Prohibited Uses) and DEF 698-701, 707 (Section III, Chemical Agents and Their Descriptions, including subsections on Types of Contamination, Decontamination of Individuals, and Area Decontamination Procedures)—no later than November 13, 2027. The court permitted redactions to exclude text outside these headings and information regarding staff conducting the presentation.
The court sustained the privilege objection for the remainder of the training presentation, which contained the institution's analyses, opinions, force options and techniques, and CDCR personnel information such as badge numbers and contact details. The court found that disclosure of these remaining pages could create a substantial risk to officer, inmate, and facility safety by enabling inmates to develop countermeasures to uses of force, and that these risks outweighed the benefits of disclosure.
Key Takeaways
- A party resisting a motion to compel can demonstrate the adequacy of its search through a sworn declaration detailing the search terms, custodians, and time periods used, particularly when the requesting party fails to challenge the sufficiency of those terms.
- The official information privilege is qualified, not absolute, and requires courts to balance the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages, often using in camera review to assess the materials.
- Prison training materials on chemical agents may be discoverable in excessive force cases where they contain direct evidence of training on appropriate use and decontamination procedures relevant to the plaintiff's claims.
- Courts may order partial production of privileged documents with redactions and specific deadlines, allowing disclosure of relevant sections while protecting sensitive security information and personnel details.
- Even when a privilege is properly asserted with an adequate declaration, the court must still weigh the specific risks of disclosure against the relevance and importance of the evidence to the litigation.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the nuanced application of the official information privilege in prison civil rights litigation, particularly regarding training materials for use of force. The court's decision to conduct an in camera review and order partial production by a date certain demonstrates how courts can balance a prisoner's need for evidence to support excessive force and deliberate indifference claims against legitimate institutional security concerns.
The ruling also underscores the importance of detailed declarations in discovery disputes. Defendant Pascoe's success in defending her search for emails was due to counsel's sworn testimony about specific search terms and custodians, while her partial loss on the training documents shows that even a properly asserted privilege can be overcome when the relevance of specific, non-sensitive portions of a document is high and the risk of disclosure is low.