1 2 3 4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LLOYD TILLETT, Case No. 1:24-cv-00849-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER OVERRULING IN PART 12 DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO DANIEL JAMES CAASI, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 13 Defendant. (ECF No. 27) 14

15 16 Plaintiff Lloyd Tillett is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 civil rights action filed pursuant to

. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing 18 this action on July 23, 2024. (ECF No. 1). The case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth 19 Amendment claim against Defendant Cassi for sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a 20 prison official. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Caasi touched him in a sexual 21 manner without a valid medical or penological purpose. (Id., at 4.) 22 Now before the Court are Defendant’s Objections to Court Order Requiring Parties to 23 Exchange Documents (ECF No. 27), which claims that all documents related to the institution’s investigation into Plaintiff’s grievance should be withheld from production. 24 Having reviewed the documents submitted for in camera review, the Court finds that 25 Defendant’s objections to production is overruled in part. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment sexual assault claim against 3 defendant Daniel James Caasi, a CCHCS (California Correctional Health Care Services) 4 employee and a Registered Nurse. The Court opened discovery on January 31, 2025. (ECF No. 24). To secure the just, 5 speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action, the Court directed the parties to exchange 6 certain documents, including “[w]itness statements and evidence that were generated from 7 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as an investigation 8 stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s).” (ECF No. 24, at 2.) The Court cited 9 Supreme Court precedent stating that “proper exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner 10 suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an 11 administrative record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event 12 giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still 13 fresh, and evidence can be gathered and preserved.” See Woodford v. Ngo,

, 94–95 14 (2006). 15 On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed Objections to Court Order Requiring Parties to 16 Exchange Documents. (ECF No. 27). In that document, Defendant objects to production of all 17 documents gathered as part of the investigation into Plaintiff’s grievance regarding his allegation 18 that he was sexually assaulted on February 21, 2023, including the interviews with the Plaintiff 19 and Defendant Cassi, information gathered from other staff members, investigator’s photographs 20 of the room where the alleged incident occurred and impressions regarding those photographs, the 21 placement and availability of audio-visual recording devices in parts of the prison, and notes 22 regarding the investigators’ impressions and analysis of the information reviewed as part of the 23 investigation, as well as the process the investigator followed in conducting the investigations. (ECF No. 27, at p. 2). In particular, Defendant objects to production of witness statements 24 “because the documents contain information that would reveal techniques used to investigate 25 inmates and parolee complaints against staff,” and disclosure of such techniques “would 26 undermine the effectiveness of investigations into staff misconduct, as witnesses, although 27 admonished to be truthful and candid, would be more reluctant to candidly provide information if 28 1 they knew the information could be disclosed.” (ECF No. 27, at p. 2). Defendant also claims that 2 photographs of the scene and notes regarding the availability of audio-visual recording equipment 3 could be used to plan future misconduct or evade detection. (ECF No. 27, at p. 3). 4 Defendant also submitted the Declaration of E. Campos, the Litigation Coordinator at CHCF. That declaration describes the search for documents responsive to the Court’s order, the 5 documents located related to the institution’s investigation of Plaintiff’s allegations, and the 6 institution’s designation of all documents as confidential. It also describes the risk that such 7 documents could be given to other inmates, and the concern that disclosure would reveal 8 investigation techniques and types of corrective measures, which could be used to “sabotage staff 9 attempts to deal with disruptive conduct and to undermine investigations into alleged 10 misconduct.” (ECF No. 27-1). 11 Defendant sent the withheld documents to the Court for in camera review, and provided 12 Plaintiff and the Court with a privilege log of the documents, as required by the Court’s 13 Discovery and Scheduling Order. Specifically, Defendant submitted the following documents for 14 in camera review: the Allegation Investigation Unit Internal Affairs Administrative Investigation 15 Report (AGO CONF 001-043), the Allegation Investigative Unit Closure (Id. at 044), the Watch 16 Commander Notification Checklist (Id. at 045), the Survey of Sexual Victimization (Id. at 046- 17 050), the Mental Health Referral Chrono (Id. at 051-052), the Prison Rape Elimination Act 18 Custody Supervisor Checklist (Id. at 053-054), the Allegation Inquiry into PREA Allegations Log 19 (Id. at 055-057), the Confidential Memo to AIMS (Id. at 058-061), the Inmate Photograph, 20 Inmate Bed Assignment, and Inmate Disability Information (Id. at 062-065), the Survey of Sexual 21 Victimization Incident Form (Id. at 066-071), the Initial Notification and Mental Health Referral 22 Chrono (Id. at 072-076), the Commander and Custody Supervisory Checklists and Protection 23 Against Retaliation (Id. at 077-082), and Recorded Witness Interviews (Id. at 083-084). (ECF No. 28). 24 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 25 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to obtain discovery 26 “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ.

(b)(1). Questions of privilege in federal civil rights cases are governed by federal law. Fed. 28 1 R. Evid. 501; Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of California,

(9th Cir. 1975), 2 aff’d,

(1976). 3 The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as 4 the official or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified privilege, contingent upon the competing interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 5 N. Dist. of Cal.,

(9th Cir. 1975) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has since 6 followed Kerr in requiring in camera review and a balancing of interests in ruling on the 7 government's claim of the official information privilege. See, e.g., Breed v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. 8 Dist. of Cal.,

(9th Cir. 1976) (“[A]s required by Kerr, we recognize ‘that in 9 camera review is a highly appropriate and useful means of dealing with claims of governmental 10 privilege.’”) (quoting Kerr,

; Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana,

, 1033– 11 34 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Government personnel files are considered official information. To 12 determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits 13 of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars 14 discovery.”) (internal citations omitted). 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 The Court has reviewed the documents provided for in camera review with these legal 17 standards in mind, and finds that Defendant’s objections as to certain portions of these documents 18 should be overruled. 19 Notably, the Court’s discovery order required Defendant to produce “[w]itness statements 20 and evidence that were generated from investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the 21 complaint, such as an investigation stemming from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s), if 22 any,” and noted that “Defendant(s) only need to produce documents such as a Confidential 23 Appeal Inquiry or a Use of Force Critique to the extent those documents contain witness statements related to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint and/or evidence related to the 24 incident(s) alleged in the complaint that will not be provided to Plaintiff separately.” (ECF No. 25 24, at p. 2). The documents submitted for in camera review include such witness statements and 26 evidence, including the following: 27 • AGO CONF. 003: summary of interview of Plaintiff Lloyd Tillet on October 2, 2023. 28 1 • AGO CONF. 004: summary of interview of Daniel Caasi 2 • AGO CONF. 007: Letter from Plaintiff Tillet regarding report of misconduct by Caasi 3 • AGO CONF. 009-013: Letter from Plaintiff to Office of Internal Affairs regarding 4 allegation of misconduct by Caasi • AGO CONF. 017-018: sections entitled “PREA Allegation” and “Investigation” 5 summarizing interview with Tillet regarding allegation against Caasi and information 6 regarding where Tillet was housed from June 9, 2022 through the date of the 7 allegation. 8 • AGO CONF. 021-034: photographs taken of the room where the incident is alleged to 9 have occurred 10 • AGO CONF. 043: Copy of Article 44, Prison Rape Elimination Policy, revised May 11 19, 2020 12 • AGO CONF. 063: Photograph of Tillet 13 • AGO CONF. 064: Bed Assignments of Tillet from 5/6/2016-4/15/2023 14 • AGO CONF. 065: DDP Disability/Accommodation Summary 15 These documents, or portions of documents, contain direct evidence regarding the incident 16 in this case, including contemporary witness accounts of the event from the Plaintiff and 17 Defendant in this case, photographs of the room where the incident is alleged to take place, and 18 related evidence regarding Plaintiff’s location at that time. Such evidence is directly relevant to 19 this case, and could be used as evidence at summary judgment or trial in this matter. 20 The Court has also evaluated Defendant’s objections and finds that the risks identified in 21 those objections do not outweigh the benefits that disclosure of these documents, or portions of 22 documents, would have to this case. The summaries of the interviews are short and 23 straightforward, and do not reveal any confidential techniques that could undermine the effectiveness of such investigations in the future. Moreover, the Court is only requiring 24 production of the summaries of the interviews themselves, and not any related discussion or 25 evaluation of those summaries that could reveal the institution’s techniques or impressions. Nor 26 does the Court agree that disclosing such interviews would cause witnesses in the future to be less 27 truthful in similar investigations. On the contrary, the fact that witness statements may be used 28 1 later in court would seem to encourage candor in such situations. The Court also does not see a 2 basis for Defendant’s claim that disclosure could subject staff and inmates to ridicule or 3 retaliation, especially given that Plaintiff has now filed a public lawsuit making these same 4 allegations. The Court has also examined the photographs included and does not find any information that could lead to future misconduct. Rather, those photographs merely show the 5 Plaintiff and the location of the alleged incident. 6 Thus, the Court finds that disclosure of these documents, or portions of documents, would 7 promote the truth-finding process because they contain details of the parties’ actions and 8 statements recorded close to the time that the relevant events occurred. See Woodford,

94–95. These benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential disadvantages contended by the 10 Defendant. See Sanchez,

. 11 The Court also overrules Defendant’s objection to production of the audio of the 12 interviews of the Plaintiff and Tillett regarding this incident. Again, such recordings are direct 13 and highly relevant evidence of the incident in question, and could be used as evidence at 14 summary judgment or trial in this case. Nor does the Court believe that potential risks identified 15 by Defendant’s outweigh the benefits of such disclosure.1 16 The Court sustains Defendant’s objection to production of the remaining materials, which 17 include internal process documents such as notification of rights and scheduling of interviews as 18 well as the institution’s internal evaluations and findings from that investigation. Such internal 19 evaluations are not direct evidence of what occurred, and thus the potential risks from disclosure 20 outweigh the benefit to the case. 21 Moreover, the Court sustains Defendant’s objection to production of any personal 22 information regarding the staff who assisted in the investigation, because such information is not 23 relevant to the case. Thus, to the extent the documents listed above contain any personal information about staff who conducted the investigation, that information may be redacted. 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26

27 1 To the extent Plaintiff is unable to obtain and review such files for safety and security reasons in custody, Defendant may make available these recordings for Plaintiff’s review, and facilitate the filing of such 28 documents with the Court if requested by Plaintiff in connection with future proceedings. 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s objection to production of documents (ECF No. 3 27) is overruled in part. No later than 30 days from the date of this order, Defendant shall provide 4 the following documents to Plaintiff, with appropriate redactions described below: • AGO CONF. 003: summary of interview of Plaintiff Lloyd Tillet on October 2, 2023. 5 • AGO CONF. 004: summary of interview of Daniel Caasi 6 • AGO CONF. 007: Letter from Plaintiff Tillet regarding report of misconduct by Caasi 7 • AGO CONF. 009-013: Letter from Plaintiff to Office of Internal Affairs regarding 8 allegation of misconduct by Caasi 9 • AGO CONF. 017-018: sections entitled “PREA Allegation” and “Investigation” 10 summarizing interview with Tillet regarding allegation against Caasi and information 11 regarding where Tillet was housed from June 9, 2022 through the date of the 12 allegation. 13 • AGO CONF. 021-034: photographs taken of the room where the incident is alleged to 14 have occurred 15 • AGO CONF. 043: Copy of Article 44, Prison Rape Elimination Policy, revised May 16 19, 2020 17 • AGO CONF. 063: Photograph of Tillet 18 • AGO CONF. 064: Bed Assignments of Tillet from 5/6/2016-4/15/2023 19 • AGO CONF. 065: DDP Disability/Accommodation Summary 20 These documents may be produced in redacted form to remove any personal information 21 regarding the investigation staff. Moreover, only the portions of the documents described above, 22 containing direct evidence and summary of witness accounts of the incident, shall be produced. 23 Defendant may redact the institution’s description of the process, analysis, and conclusions of investigating staff. 24 Defendant shall also make the following data files available for Plaintiff to review, and 25 coordinate the filing of such evidence with the Court in the future upon request of Plaintiff: 26 • Recorded witness interviews of Plaintiff and Defendant, identified on AGO CONF 27 083-084. 28 1 Additionally, Defendant shall file a notice of compliance with the Court concurrently with 2 | production to Plaintiff. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5] Dated: _ May 28, 2025 [see hey 6 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