Daniel Padilla v. City of Redondo Beach

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 7, 2023
Docket2:17-cv-03660
StatusUnknown

This text of Daniel Padilla v. City of Redondo Beach (Daniel Padilla v. City of Redondo Beach) 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
Daniel Padilla v. City of Redondo Beach, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 || Mildred K. O'Linn, Esq. (State Bar No. 159055) mko@manningllp.com 2 ||G. Craig Smith (stat Bar No. 265676) cs@manningllp.com 3 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4||801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 || Telephone: Gb) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendants, || CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, JOSEPH HOFFMAN, BRIAN WEISS, RYAN HARRISON 8 || and SALVADOR GARCIA 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION < 11 12 oO DANIEL PADILLA, an individual, Case No.: 2:17-cv-03660 JAK(ASx) z 13 [District Judge John A. Kronstadt; > Plaintiff, agistrate Judge AlkaSagar] = 14

1 || it affords from public disclosure and use to the limited information or items that are 2 □□ entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties 3 || further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective || Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 5 || Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 6 || be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. ”n 10 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 2 11 || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 12 || officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for 13 || the following reasons. S$ 14 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 15 || privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 16 || that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 17 || procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 18 || 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19 || 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies 20 || to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege 21 || law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying 22 || [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”’);Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 23 || 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based 24 || “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf- 25 || Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants 26 || further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can 27 || threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their 28 || families/associates.

1 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement 2 || agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official 3 || information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client 4 || privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of 5 || their peace officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files 6 || that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or 7 || evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering 8 || legal advice or analysis — potentially including but not limited to 9 || evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, ”n 10 || evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports 2 11 || prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering = 12 || legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. 13 || United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. = 15 || Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. 16 || Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United 17 || States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further 18 || contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public 19 || entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 20 |) uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 21 |)impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and 22 || related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open 23 |)and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that 24 |) can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial 25 || measures that may be required. 26 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same 27 || rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to 28 || the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’

1 || compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 2 || 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 3 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 4 || such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 5 || impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 6 || frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, 7 || preserving the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace 8 || officers’ families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, 9 || and preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by ”n 10 || publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information — as can and often does 2 11 |} result in litigation. 12 1.2. The Parties agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as 13 || to preserve the respective interests of the parties without the need to further burden 14 || the Court with such issues. Specifically, the parties jointly contend that, absent this 15 || Stipulation and its associated Protective Order, the parties' respective privilege 16 || interests may be impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its associated 17 || Protective Order may avoid such harm by permitting the parties to facilitate 18 || discovery with reduced risk that privileged and/or sensitive/confidential information 19 || will become matters of public record. 20 1.3. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need 21 || for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy 22 || photographs, because of the privacy interests at stake therein.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daniel Padilla v. City of Redondo Beach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-padilla-v-city-of-redondo-beach-cacd-2023.