A.J. P. v. County of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 18, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-01291
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-01291-SSS-SHK Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:250

1 Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) epr@manningllp.com 2 Lynn Carpenter (State Bar No. 310011) llc@manningllp.com 3 Kayleigh Andersen (State Bar No. 306442) kaa@manningllp.com 4 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 5 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 6 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 7 Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF 8 SAN BERNARDINO

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 A.J.P. and A.M.P., minors by and Case No. 5:22-CV-01291 SSS (SHKx) through their guardian ad litem Cynthia 13 Nunez, individually and as successor in [Honorable Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, interest to Albert Perez, deceased; and Magistrate Judge, Shashi H. 14 PATRICIA RUIZ, individually, Kewalramani]

15 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 16 v. ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 17 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, 18 Defendant. 19 Action Filed: 07/22/2022

20 21 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 22 By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiffs A.J.P. and 23 A.M.P., minors by and through their guardian ad litem Cynthia Nunez, individually 24 and as successor in interest to Albert Perez, deceased; and PATRICIA RUIZ, 25 individually (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 26 (“Defendant”) – the parties – hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting 27 that the honorable Court enter a protective order re confidential documents in this 28 matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:22-cv-01291-SSS-SHK Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:251

1 Cal., Local Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and any applicable Orders of the Court] – as follows: 2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 3 1. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. 4 1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. 5 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 6 protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 7 personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 8 following reasons. 9 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 10 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 11 underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 12 of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 13 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 14 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 15 discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 16 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 17 privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 18 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 19 [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 20 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 21 uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 22 non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 23 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 24 have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 25 privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 26 (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 27 officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 28 critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 2 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:22-cv-01291-SSS-SHK Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:252

1 communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – 2 potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 3 Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 4 or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 5 obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 6 Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 7 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 8 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 9 Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 10 v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 11 further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the 12 public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 13 uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 14 impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements 15 and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of 16 open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 17 misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement 18 any remedial measures that may be required. 19 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 20 as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 21 fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 22 compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 23 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 24 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 25 such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 26 impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 27 frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 28 the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ 3 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:22-cv-01291-SSS-SHK Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:253

1 families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and 2 preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by 3 publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information – as can and often does 4 result in litigation. 5 Plaintiffs agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 6 the respective interests of the parties without the need to further burden the Court with 7 such issues. Specifically, the parties jointly contend that, absent this Stipulation and 8 its associated Protective Order, the parties' respective privilege interests may be 9 impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its associated Protective Order may 10 avoid such harm by permitting the parties to facilitate discovery with reduced risk that 11 privileged and/or sensitive/confidential information will become matters of public 12 record. 13 1.2. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need 14 for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy 15 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.J. P. v. County of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aj-p-v-county-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2023.