Alejandro Campos Jr. v. City of Fullerton

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 7, 2025
Docket8:24-cv-01892
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 Angela M. Powell, SBN 191876 amp@jones-mayer.com 2 Denise L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com 3 Helen O. Kim, SBN 254560 hok@jones-mayer.com 4 JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 5 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 6 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 Attorneys for Defendant, City of Fullerton 7 Luis A. Carrillo, SBN 70398 8 lc@carrillofirm.com Michael S. Carrillo, SBN 258878 9 mc@carrillofirm.com J. Miguel Flores, SBN 240535 10 mf@carrillofirm.com CARRILLO LAW FIRM, LLP 11 1499 Huntington Drive, Suite 402 South Pasadena, CA 91030 12 Telephone: (626) 799-9375 Facsimile: (626) 799-9380 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Alejandro Campos, Jr.

14 Arnoldo Casillas, SBN 158519 Acasillas@casillaslegal.com 15 CASILLAS & ASSOCIATES 2801 E. Spring Street, Suite 200 16 Long Beach, CA 90806 Telephone: (562) 203-3030 17 Facsimile: (323) 725-0350 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jose Campos Herrera and Elvira Campos Rios 18

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 ALEJANDRO CAMPOS, JR., JOSE 22 CAMPOS HERRERA, and ELVIRA Case No. 8:24-cv-01892 DOC-ADS CAMPOS RIOS 23 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 24 vs. 25 CITY OF FULLERTON, and DOES 1-10, 26 inclusive

27 Defendants.

28 1 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 6 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 7 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set 11 forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 12 entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets 13 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 14 when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 15 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 A. This action is likely to involve discovery that is confidential and 17 privileged for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 18 any purpose other than prosecution of this action may be warranted. Such 19 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 20 things, information pertaining to Fullerton Police Department (FPD) and Orange 21 County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) investigation of the underlying criminal 22 activities, as well as peace officer personnel file information and/or documents 23 which the Parties agree include (1) Personal data, including marital status, family 24 members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar 25 information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee 26 advancement, appraisal or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of 27 complaints, if any, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace officer 28 participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the manner in 1 which the peace officer performed his or her duties. 2 Such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, 3 materials that may be entitled to privileges and/or protections under the 4 following: United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California 5 Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7 and 832.8; 6 California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et. seq; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 7 U.S.C. § 552; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 8 (HIPPA); the right to privacy; decisional law relating to such provisions; and 9 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 10 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 11 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 12 Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and information 13 is entitled to the Official Information Privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 14 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal.1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 15 N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. Cal. 1975). Aff’d, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 16 3229, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). The information otherwise may be generally 17 unavailable to the public, or may be privileged or otherwise protected from 18 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 19 law. 20 Further, discovery may require depositions, written discovery and/or the 21 production of certain OCDA Policies and Procedures, and peace officer training 22 information the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, and/or 23 raise security issues. Additionally, public disclosure of such information poses a 24 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression, and/or physical harm to peace 25 officers whose confidential information is disclosed. The risk of harm to peace 26 officers is greater than with other government employees due to the nature of 27 their profession. The benefit of public disclosure of confidential information is 28 minimal while the potential disadvantages are great. 1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 3 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 5 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 6 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 7 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 8 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 9 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non- 10 public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 11 record of this case. 12 III. DEFINITIONS 13 A. Action: Alejandro Campos, Jr., Jose Campos Herrera, and Elvira 14 Campos Rios v City of Fullerton, and does 1-10, inclusive. 15 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items under this Order. 17 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 18 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 20 the Good Cause Statement. 21 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 22 their support staff). 23 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 24 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 25 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 26 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, 27 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 28 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 1 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in 2 this matter. 3 G.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alejandro Campos Jr. v. City of Fullerton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alejandro-campos-jr-v-city-of-fullerton-cacd-2025.