Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Derek Tate is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 3, 2025, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Tate's motion to compel and denying his construed motions for reconsideration. Relevant here, the court granted the motion to compel as to Request for Production of Document numbers 10, 12, and 17, subject to the court's in camera review of those documents.
On December 16, 2025, defendants submitted the documents at issue for in camera review. The documents were: (1) a PREA Confidential Investigation Memorandum for log number SAC-PREA-21-01-008; (2) a PREA Confidential Closure Memorandum for the same log number; and (3) a Confidential Allegation Inquiry Memorandum for grievance log number KVSP-HC-18000843/KVSP-SC-19000013. The court recognized both the privileged nature of investigative reports of public safety officers and the plaintiff's need for information relevant to his claims.
The Court’s Holding
Applying Ninth Circuit precedent requiring in camera review and a balancing of interests when the government asserts the official information privilege, the court concluded that the documents should be released to the plaintiff in redacted form. The court found that, on balance, disclosure of the subject documents outweighs any potential risk to institutional safety and security, citing Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana and Soto v. City of Concord.
The court accepted defendants' proposed redactions for the Confidential Allegation Inquiry Memorandum and found those redactions appropriate. Defendants were ordered to produce redacted versions of the PREA Confidential Investigation Memorandum and the associated PREA Confidential Closure Memorandum, withholding any personal identifying information required to protect the privacy and security of correctional staff.
The court also issued a protective order sua sponte. The order requires production within 21 days, permits submission of the confidential documents to the litigation coordinator at the institution where the plaintiff is housed, allows the plaintiff up to 90 minutes to review the materials and take notes, prohibits copying or retention of the documents or notes, bars disclosure to or discussion with other inmates, mandates destruction or return of materials no later than 30 days after trial or appeal, restricts use to this litigation, requires sealed filing of any confidential material, and provides that violations may be punishable as contempt or subject the violating party to litigation sanctions, including dispositive sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The court balanced the qualified governmental official information privilege against the prisoner plaintiff's discovery needs and found that disclosure with redactions was appropriate.
- Ninth Circuit precedent requires in camera review and a balancing of interests when the government asserts the official information privilege over investigative documents.
- The protective order imposes strict limitations on the pro se prisoner's access, including supervised review, no copying or retention, and a prohibition on sharing the materials with other inmates.
- Defendants must produce redacted versions of two PREA memoranda and one grievance inquiry memorandum within 21 days.
- The protective order remains in full force and effect until further order of the court and preserves the parties' rights to seek modification or further protective orders.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of the qualified governmental official information privilege in prisoner civil rights litigation, where courts must weigh institutional security against a plaintiff's need for evidence. The decision follows Ninth Circuit authority requiring in camera review and balancing, and demonstrates the typical protective measures imposed when sensitive prison investigative documents are disclosed to incarcerated pro se litigants.
The sua sponte protective order reflects the court's effort to accommodate a pro se prisoner's access to relevant discovery while safeguarding the confidentiality of PREA investigation materials and the privacy and security of correctional staff.