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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 18, 2023·No. 5:22-cv-01291·Unknown

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 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

A.J.P. and A.M.P., minors by and Case No. 5:22-CV-01291 SSS (SHKx) through their guardian ad litem Cynthia Nunez, individually and as successor in [Honorable Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, interest to Albert Perez, deceased; and Magistrate Judge, Shashi H. PATRICIA RUIZ, individually, Kewalramani]

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

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiffs A.J.P. and A.M.P., minors by and through their guardian ad litem Cynthia Nunez, individually and as successor in interest to Albert Perez, deceased; and PATRICIA RUIZ, individually (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (“Defendant”) – the parties – hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order re confidential documents in this 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: 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 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 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. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 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 uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial measures that may be required. Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 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

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

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

A.J. P. v. County of San Bernardino (A.J. P. v. County of San Bernardino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)