Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Terrel Holmes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that on May 1, 2025, correctional officer Dowling at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility slammed a cell door on his right hand on purpose, and that she confirmed it was intentional when he asked. Following screening, the case proceeds on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. These are allegations only; the order makes no finding on them.
Discovery opened on June 26, 2026, and the court directed the parties to exchange witness statements and evidence generated by investigations of the incident, including grievance investigations. On August 25, 2026, Dowling served a notice of compliance asserting the official information and privacy privileges over certain documents and audio files. She lodged for in camera review an internal affairs investigation report with exhibits, interview forms, closure memoranda, an inquiry file, and audio-recorded interviews of herself and Officer Valdez, with a declaration from the prison litigation coordinator, J. Barba. Barba stated that disclosure could jeopardize security, reveal investigative techniques, chill staff candor, and expose personnel information to misuse.
Holmes filed a motion asking the court to consider the discovery scheduling order in deciding the privilege dispute and later sought leave to file a sur-reply. He clarified that the first filing was an opposition to the privilege assertions, not a motion to compel.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge applied the qualified official information privilege under federal law, citing Kerr, Breed, and Sanchez, which call for in camera review and a weighing of the benefits of disclosure against its disadvantages. After reviewing the lodged materials, the court overruled the objections in part and found that direct evidence of the incident should be produced: photographs of Holmes and photographs taken from video footage (AGO 0007-10, 0021, 0109); written interview summaries of Holmes, Officer Valdez, and Dowling (AGO 0010-14); Holmes's grievance (AGO 0102-103); his medical record (AGO 0105); a disability accommodation summary (AGO 0110); and both audio-recorded interviews.
The court reasoned that these materials are short, contain contemporaneous accounts recorded close in time to the incident, include no statements of other inmates, and reveal no confidential techniques. It rejected the argument that disclosure would make future witnesses less candid, observing that possible later use in court tends to encourage candor. The court sustained the objections as to the institution's analyses and opinions, hiring review, closing documents, and personnel information such as badge numbers, PERNR numbers, and work email addresses and phone numbers, because those are not direct evidence of what happened and disclosure could raise security concerns. Dowling may redact those items and, for the photographs, captions and other text.
Within 30 days Dowling must produce the specified portions and file a notice of compliance at the same time. If Holmes cannot obtain and review the audio files in custody for safety reasons, she must make them available for his review within 60 days and facilitate filing them with the court if he requests it for future proceedings. The court denied Holmes's motion regarding the scheduling order as moot, denied leave to file a sur-reply because no further briefing was needed, and directed the Clerk to correct the spelling of Dowling's name on the docket.
Key Takeaways
- The official information privilege is qualified, so a court must weigh the litigant's need for relevant evidence against the government's confidentiality interests after in camera review.
- Contemporaneous witness interview summaries, photographs, grievance and medical records, and recorded interviews were treated as direct evidence of the alleged use of force and ordered produced.
- Investigators' analyses, opinions, closing documents, and staff identifiers such as badge numbers and work contact details remained shielded because they are not direct evidence and carry security risks.
- The order is a discovery ruling only; it does not decide whether excessive force occurred, and the claim remains pending for further proceedings.
- A prisoner who cannot review audio files in custody must be given access to them within 60 days under the order.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a magistrate judge can resolve a broad privilege assertion over an internal investigation file by segregating discrete, relevant evidence from evaluative material and personnel data, rather than upholding or rejecting the privilege wholesale. Its reasoning is specific to the lodged documents and the declaration offered.
Because it is an unpublished district court discovery order, it has no binding precedential weight, though it illustrates routine application of Ninth Circuit authority. The merits of Holmes's Eighth Amendment claim, and any summary judgment or trial use of the produced materials, remain open.