Alejandro Campos Jr. v. City of Fullerton

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 7, 2025·No. 8:24-cv-01892·Unknown

Opinion

Angela M. Powell, SBN 191876 amp@jones-mayer.com Denise L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com Helen O. Kim, SBN 254560 hok@jones-mayer.com 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 Attorneys for Defendant, City of Fullerton Luis A. Carrillo, SBN 70398 lc@carrillofirm.com Michael S. Carrillo, SBN 258878 mc@carrillofirm.com J. Miguel Flores, SBN 240535 mf@carrillofirm.com CARRILLO LAW FIRM, LLP 1499 Huntington Drive, Suite 402 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (626) 799-9375 Facsimile: (626) 799-9380 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Alejandro Campos, Jr.

Arnoldo Casillas, SBN 158519 Acasillas@casillaslegal.com 2801 E. Spring Street, Suite 200 Long Beach, CA 90806 Telephone: (562) 203-3030 Facsimile: (323) 725-0350 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jose Campos Herrera and Elvira Campos Rios

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALEJANDRO CAMPOS, JR., JOSE CAMPOS HERRERA, and ELVIRA Case No. 8:24-cv-01892 DOC-ADS CAMPOS RIOS Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER vs. CITY OF FULLERTON, and DOES 1-10, inclusive

Defendants.

A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. A. This action is likely to involve discovery that is confidential and privileged for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action may be warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, information pertaining to Fullerton Police Department (FPD) and Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) investigation of the underlying criminal activities, as well as peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Parties agree include (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, if any, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, materials that may be entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7 and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et. seq; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA); the right to privacy; decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and information is entitled to the Official Information Privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal.1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. Cal. 1975). Aff’d, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 3229, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). The information otherwise may be generally unavailable to the public, or may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Further, discovery may require depositions, written discovery and/or the production of certain OCDA Policies and Procedures, and peace officer training information the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, and/or raise security issues. Additionally, public disclosure of such information poses a substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression, and/or physical harm to peace officers whose confidential information is disclosed. The risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees due to the nature of their profession. The benefit of public disclosure of confidential information is minimal while the potential disadvantages are great. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non- public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. A. Action: Alejandro Campos, Jr., Jose Campos Herrera, and Elvira Campos Rios v City of Fullerton, and does 1-10, inclusive. B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. H. House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. I. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or othe

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

Alejandro Campos Jr. v. City of Fullerton, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Alejandro Campos Jr. v. City of Fullerton (Alejandro Campos Jr. v. City of Fullerton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related