Angel Francisco Sanchez v. City of Baldwin Park

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 11, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-03807
StatusUnknown

This text of Angel Francisco Sanchez v. City of Baldwin Park (Angel Francisco Sanchez v. City of Baldwin Park) 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
Angel Francisco Sanchez v. City of Baldwin Park, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 || Mildred K. O'Linn (State Bar No. 159055) missy.olian@manningkass.com 2 || Craig Smith (State Bar No. 265676) craig smith(@manningkass.com || MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4||801S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 || Telephone: GBR) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF 7 BALDWIN PARK, ERIC CAMACHO and JOSE CASTRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 10

2 ou ANGEL FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-03807-DMG-MAR — 12 District Judge: Dolly M Gee; © Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge: Margo A. Rocconi z 13 > v. = 14

50 By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiff ANGEL

5 SANCHEZ and defendants CITY OF BALDWIN PARK, ERIC CAMACHO, and

9 JOSE CASTRO (hereinafter "Defendants") — the parties — hereby stipulate for the

33 purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order re

34 confidential documents in this matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26,

35 as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal., Local Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and any applicable 36 Orders of the Court] — as follows:

27 28

l GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2|\1. INTRODUCTION. 3 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 5 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 6 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 7 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 8 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 9 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 10 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 2 11 |] only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 12 || under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 2 13 || Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them toile S$ 14 || confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 15 || that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 16 || permission from the court to file material under seal. 17 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 19 || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 20 || personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 21 || following reasons. 22 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 23 ||in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 24 || underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 25 || of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 26 || (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 27 || 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 28 || discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is

1 ||consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 2 || privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 3 ||n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 4 || [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf Cal. Penal Code 51|§§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 6 || uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 7 ||non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 8 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 9 ||have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information

n 10 || privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 2 11 || (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 12 || officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 2 13 || critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 2 14 || communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis — = 15 || potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 16 || Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 18 || obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa □□ Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 20 || 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 21) 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 22 || Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 23]|v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 24 || further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the 25 || public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 26 || uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 27 impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements 28 || and related legitimate law enforcement □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ and a chilling of

1|;}open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 2 || misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement 3 || any remedial measures that may be required. 4 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 5 ||as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 6||fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 7 || compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 8 || 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 9 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing n 10 || such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 2 11 ||impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 12 || frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 2 13 || the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ 2 □□ families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and = 15||preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by 16 || publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information — as can and often does 17 || result in litigation. 18 Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to 19 || preserve the respective interests of the parties without the need to further burden the 20 || Court with such issues.

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)
Angel Francisco Sanchez v. City of Baldwin Park, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angel-francisco-sanchez-v-city-of-baldwin-park-cacd-2023.