Bueno Zaragoza v. Lynch

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJune 8, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02294
StatusUnknown

This text of Bueno Zaragoza v. Lynch (Bueno Zaragoza v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bueno Zaragoza v. Lynch, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 Attorney General of California 2 JON S. ALLIN, State Bar No. 155069 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 BRIAN S. CHAN, State Bar No. 299926 Deputy Attorney General 4 DAVID E. KUCHINSKY, State Bar No. 292861 Deputy Attorney General 5 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 6 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7666 7 Fax: (916) 324-5205 E-mail: David.Kuchinsky@doj.ca.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants J. Lynch, D. Garland, M. Jordan, W. Lieber, H. Chavez, D. Sykes, 9 J. Gomez, and J. Carothers

10 CLAUDIA C. BOHORQUEZ, ESQ. State Bar No. 150647 LAW OFFICES OF CLAUDIA C. BOHORQUEZ 11 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90036 12 Telephone: (323) 648-6761 Fax: (323) 978-6637 13 E-mail: cbohorquez@bohorquezlawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Ma Rosario Bueno Zaragoza 14 Estate of Luis Giovanny Aguilar

15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 18 19 20 ZARAGOZA, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02294 TLN-JDP 21 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 22 v. Local Rule 141.1 23 Judge: Hon. Jeremy D. Peterson LYNCH, et al., Action Filed: December 10, 2021 24 Defendants. 25

27 28 1 IT IS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR 2 RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, AND ORDERED BY THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 3 I. CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL SUBJECT TO THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 Plaintiff Zaragoza, the mother of deceased inmate Luis Giovanny Aguilar, has filed an 5 amended complaint alleging that Defendants were complicit in Aguilar’s death or failed to protect 6 him from a substantial risk of harm on December 12, 2019, when Aguilar was stabbed to death by 7 two inmates at the California State Prison, Sacramento in Represa, California. 8 As a result of the incident, prison staff immediately launched a confidential investigation 9 into Plaintiff’s allegations, which included taking statements from witnesses and alleged 10 participants, collecting and preserving physical evidence, including surveillance video footage 11 and photographs documenting the incident and investigation, and reviewing inmate files and 12 communications. The results of the investigation were recorded in confidential reports and 13 memoranda. The reports and memoranda contain highly sensitive information including, among 14 other things: confidential and protected information regarding Aguilar and the alleged participants 15 in the assault, the names and CDCR numbers of other CDCR inmates, identifying information of 16 CDCR staff members and/or contractors, confidential disciplinary records, video footage, 17 photographs, letters written by inmates, and operational procedures for the unit in which Aguilar 18 died. 19 The parties acknowledge that this order does not confer blanket protections on all 20 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 21 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 22 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge that this protective order 23 does not entitle the parties to file confidential information under seal. Local rule 141 sets forth 24 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 25 permission from the court to file material under seal. 26 II. NEED FOR PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 27 Defendants contend that the confidential reports, memoranda, documents, and 28 communications discussed above are protected by the official information privilege under federal 1 law and, but for this protective order, should not be disclosed. Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 2 N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); see also Kelly v. City of 3 San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 670 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (privilege only applies if “disclosure subject to a 4 carefully crafted protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant 5 governmental or privacy interests”). Defendants also contend that, absent this protective order, 6 disclosure of the reports and memoranda could jeopardize the safety and security of California 7 prisons—in particular, it could jeopardize the safety of participants and witnesses, as well as 8 interfere with and compromise CDCR’s ability to conduct investigations into serious incidents 9 and allegations of misconduct. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321 (a)(1)(2)(5), 3450(d) (2019). 10 Unprotected disclosure of the reports and memoranda would also violate the privacy rights of 11 third-party inmates, officers, and non-inmates mentioned in the reports and memoranda Cal. 12 Const. art. I, § 1; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.24. 13 III. NEED FOR A COURT ORDER 14 In this action, Plaintiff has propounded requests for the production of documents, which 15 include the confidential reports, memoranda, interviews, and evidence described above. A private 16 agreement among the parties is not sufficient to protect CDCR’s interests, and those of third 17 parties, in maintaining the confidentiality of these documents and materials. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 19 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to ensure the parties are permitted reasonably 20 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, and serve the ends of 21 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 22 IV. CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 23 The Court orders the following to protect the confidentiality of the documents described 24 above: 25 1. The provisions of this Protective Order apply to the documents or materials 26 designated by Defendants as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL –SUBJECT TO 27 PROTECTIVE ORDER”. The Court-issued Protective Order applies because the designated 28 documents or materials contain confidential information, which if shared, could jeopardize the 1 safety and security of CDCR institutions, its employees, inmates, informants and their families, or 2 other individuals. 3 a. The designation of “CONFIDENTIAL” is intended to encompass documents or 4 materials that Defendants, CDCR, or any nonparties in good faith believe contain information that 5 would not ordinarily be disclosed to other persons or entities because the information is 6 confidential under state or federal law or protected by privilege. 7 b. The designation of “CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE 8 ORDER” is intended to encompass documents or materials that Defendants, CDCR, or any 9 nonparties in good faith believe contain information that is particularly sensitive and therefore 10 requires the utmost level of protection. This designation will only be used when the material, if 11 shared, could jeopardize the safety and security of CDCR institutions, its employees, inmates, 12 informants and their families, the Defendants, or other individuals. 13 c. Each party or non-party who designates information or items for protection 14 under this order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies 15 under the appropriate standards. The designating party must designate for protection only those 16 parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other 17 portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not 18 warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this order. Mass, indiscriminate, or 19 routinized designations are prohibited.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bueno Zaragoza v. Lynch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bueno-zaragoza-v-lynch-caed-2022.