Abelina Perez v. County of Riverside

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 13, 2022
Docket5:22-cv-00515
StatusUnknown

This text of Abelina Perez v. County of Riverside (Abelina Perez v. County of Riverside) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abelina Perez v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case §:22-cv-00515-JGB-KK Document 22 Filed 07/13/22 Pagelof17 Page ID #:120

1 || Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) epr@manningiip.com 2 || Craig Smith (State Bar No. 265676) gcs@manningllp.com 3 || Deann Rivard (State Bar No. 177482) avi @manninglp.com 4||MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 5||801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 6 || Telephone: GB) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF 8 RIVERSIDE 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION □ 11 = 12 || ABELINA PEREZ, individually and as_| Case No. 5:22-CV-00515-JGB-KKx 2 iB successor in interest to Luis Angel MH 13 || Munoz Perez, deceased, and FABIOLA ni PEREZ, individually [DISCOVERY MATTER] Ze, 14 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE se 15 Plaintiff, ORDER Z| 16 v. - 17 || COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPUTY DOE #1, DOES 2-5, 18 Defendant. 19 Complaint Filed: 03/23/2022 20 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 24 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 25 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 26 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 27 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 28 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends Case No. 5:22-CV-00515-JGB-KK STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 5:22-cv-00515-JGB-KK Document 22 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:121

1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 3 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 4 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 5 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. 8 1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. 9 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need 10 for a protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 11 officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for 12 the following reasons. 13 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 14 privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 15 that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 16 procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 17 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies 19 to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege 20 law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying 21 [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 22 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based 23 “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. 24 Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants 25 further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can 26 threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their 27 families/associates. 28 /// 2 Case No. 5:22-CV-00515-JGB-KK STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-00515-JGB-KK Document 22 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:122

1 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement 2 agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official 3 information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client 4 privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of 5 their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files 6 that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or 7 evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering 8 legal advice or analysis – potentially including but not limited to 9 evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, 10 evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports 11 prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering 12 legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. 13 United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Soto, 162 14 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. 15 Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. 16 Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United 17 States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further 18 contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public 19 entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 20 uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 21 impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and 22 related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open 23 and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that 24 can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial 25 measures that may be required. 26 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the 27 same rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is 28 contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of 3 Case No. 5:22-CV-00515-JGB-KK STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-00515-JGB-KK Document 22 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:123

1 officers’ compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 2 Cal.3d 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 3 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order 4 preventing such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely 5 substantially impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self- 6 critical analysis, frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from 7 witnesses, preserving the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers 8 and peace officers’ families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace 9 officers, and preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally 10 undermined by publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information – as can 11 and often does result in litigation. 12 1.2. Plaintiffs do not agree with and do not stipulate to Defendants' 13 contentions herein above, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order 14 shall resolve the parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal 15 statements and claimed privileges set forth above. 16 However, plaintiffs agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective 17 Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties without the need to 18 further burden the Court with such issues.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Martin
471 P.2d 29 (California Supreme Court, 1970)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Tuite v. Henry
181 F.R.D. 175 (District of Columbia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abelina Perez v. County of Riverside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abelina-perez-v-county-of-riverside-cacd-2022.