Antonio Lopez v. City of Anaheim

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 8, 2022
Docket8:22-cv-01351
StatusUnknown

This text of Antonio Lopez v. City of Anaheim (Antonio Lopez v. City of Anaheim) 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
Antonio Lopez v. City of Anaheim, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case §{22-cv-01351-JVS-ADS Document 46 Filed 12/08/22 Page1of18 Page ID #:535

1 || Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) epr@manninglip.com 2 || Craig Smith (State Bar No. 265676) Megs Qmanngiip com 3 || 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 Moses W. Johnson, IV (State Bar No. 118769) 7 Miohnson@anaheim.net CITY OF ANAHEIM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 8 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356 Anaheim, CA 92805 9 || Telephone: ae 765-5169 Facsimile: (714) 765-5123 10 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF =| 11|]/ ANAHEIM, JORGE CISNEROS, PAUL 1 DELGADO, BRETT HEITMAN, 12|}/KENNETH WEBER, and CAITLIN ZB PANOV Me! 13 Brsi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Se: 14 2 a: CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

Case §{22-cv-01351-JVS-ADS Document 46 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2of18 Page ID #:536

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 to 6 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 || 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 forth in 5 11 || Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to

12 || file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the SF 13 || procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party Z 14 || seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 2 | 15||I GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 16 A. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. - 17 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 18 || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 19 || officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for 20 || the following reasons. 21 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 22 || privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 23 || that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 24 || procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 25 || 1033-1034 (9th Cir_1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26 || 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies 27 || to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege 28 || law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying 2 Case No. 8:22-cv-01351 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case $[22-cv-01351-JVS-ADS Document 46 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3of18 Page ID #:537

1 || [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 2 || 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based 3 || “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. 4 || Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants 5 || further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can 6 || threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 7 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement 8 || agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official 9 || information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client 10 || privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of 5 11 || their peace officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files

12 || that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or SF 13 || evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering Z Z 14 || legal advice or analysis — potentially including but not limited to 2 15 evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, 2 16 || evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports - 17 || prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering 18 || legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. 19 || United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir_1997); Soto, 162 20 || E.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. 21 || Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. 22 || Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or_2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United 23 || States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further 24 || contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public 25 || 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 and 28 || related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open 3 Case No. 8:22-ev-01351 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case §{22-cv-01351-JVS-ADS Document 46 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4of18 Page ID #:538

1 || and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that 2 ||can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial 3 || measures that may be required. 4 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same 5 ||rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to 6 || the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 7 || compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 8 || 822, 828-830 (1985); cf U.S. Const., amend V.

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

Related

Spear v. Somers Sanitation Service, Inc.
162 F.R.D. 1 (D. Massachusetts, 1995)
Tuite v. Henry
181 F.R.D. 175 (District of Columbia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Antonio Lopez v. City of Anaheim, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonio-lopez-v-city-of-anaheim-cacd-2022.