A.H. v. County of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 1, 2023
Docket5:23-cv-01028
StatusUnknown

This text of A.H. v. County of San Bernardino (A.H. v. County of San Bernardino) 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
A.H. v. County of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 || Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) epr@manningllp.com 2 || Kayleigh Andersen (State Bar No. 306442) Kaa@manningllp.com 3 || MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4||801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 || Telephone: Gb) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF 7||SAN BERNARDINO and JUSTIN LOPEZ 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12||A-H. and H.H., in each case a minor, by | Case No. 5:23-CV-01028 JGB-SHK and through their guardian ad litem 13 || Crystal Hanson, individually and as [onorable Sunshine Jesus G. Bernal, successor in interest to Shane Holland, agistrate Judge, Shashi H. 14|| deceased; C.H., a minor, by and through | Kewalramani] her guardian ad litem, Reymi Updike; 15 individually and as successor in interest to Shane Holland, deceased, and STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 2! PATRICIA HOLLAND, individually, ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 17 Plaintiffs, 18 V. Action Filed: 06/02/2023 19 || COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; JUSTIN LOPEZ, and DOES 1-10, 20 || Inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22 23 || TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 24 By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiffs A.H. and H.H., 25 ||in each case a minor, by and through their guardian ad litem Crystal Hanson, 26 || individually and as successor in interest to Shane Holland, deceased; C.H., a minor, 27 || by and through her guardian ad litem, Reymi Updike; individually and as successor 28 ||in interest to Shane Holland, deceased, and PATRICIA HOLLAND, individually

1 || (“Plaintiffs”) and defendants COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO and JUSTIN 2 || LOPEZ (“Defendants”) — the parties — hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly 3 || requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order re confidential documents 4 ||in this matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., 5||S.D. Cal., Local Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and any applicable Orders of the Court] — as 6 || follows: 7 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 |} 1. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. 9}/1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. 10 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 11 || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer

12 □□ personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 13 || following reasons. 14 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy | 15 ||in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 16 || underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure

17 || of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 18 || (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 19 || 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 20 ||discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 21 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 22 || privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 23 ||n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 24 || [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 1|§§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 26 || uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 27 ||non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 28 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies

1 || have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 2 || privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 3 || (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 4 || officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 5 || critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 6 || communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis — 7 potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 8 || Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 9 || or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 10 || obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 11 || Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir.

12 || 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 13 || 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 14 || Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. | 15 ||v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 16 || further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the

public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 18 || uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 19 ||impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements 20 || and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of 21|}open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 22 || misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement 23 || any remedial measures that may be required. 24 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 25 ||as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 26 fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 27 || compelled statements. See generally Lybarger y. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 28 || 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V.

l Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 2 ||such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 3 ||impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 4 || frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 5 ||the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ 6 ||families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and 7\||preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by 8 || publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information — as can and often does 9 || result in litigation. 10 Plaintiffs agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 11 || the respective interests of the parties without the need to further burden the Court with

12 such issues. Specifically, the parties jointly contend that, absent this Stipulation and 13 |}its associated Protective Order, the parties' respective privilege interests may be 14 || impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its associated Protective Order may | ]|lavoid such harm by permitting the parties to facilitate discovery with reduced risk that 2 16 || privileged and/or sensitive/confidential information will become matters of public 17 || record. 18 1.2. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need 19||for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy 20 || photographs, because of the privacy interests at stake therein.

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

Related

Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles
710 P.2d 329 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)
Tuite v. Henry
181 F.R.D. 175 (District of Columbia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
A.H. v. County of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ah-v-county-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2023.