Dibbern v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 20, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-00723·Unknown

Opinion

1 BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY, AND LACY LLP JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq. (SBN 69888) 2 Airport Corporate Centre 3 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621 4 Telephone: (510) 839-5200 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 5 john.burris@bncllaw.com

6 BURRIS, NISENBAUM, CURRY, AND LACY LLP 7 DEWITT M. LACY, Esq. (SBN 258789) JULIA N. QUESADA, Esq. (SBN 337872) 8 LENA P. ANDREWS, Esq. (SBN 342471) 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 9 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone: (310) 601-7070 10 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 11 dewitt.lacy@bncllaw.com julia.quesada@bncllaw.com 12 lena.andrews@bncllaw.com

13 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 14 Jeffrey Dibbern

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15

16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 JEFFREY DIBBERN, an individual, CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-00723-CDB

18 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 19 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER

20 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal entity; ANTHONY KIDWELL, individually and in his 21 official capacity as a police officer for the Bakersfield Police Department; JEFFREY 22 KING, individually and in his official capacity 23 as a police officer for the Bakersfield Police Department; JAIME VELAZQUEZ, 24 individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the Bakersfield Police 25 Department; NGHIA DUONG, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the 26 Bakersfield Police Department; FABIAN 27 SALAZAR, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the Bakersfield 28 1 Police Department; GARETT SANFORD, individually and in his official capacity as a 2 police officer for the Bakersfield Police 3 Department; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually and in their official capacity as 4 police officers for the Bakersfield Police Department, 5 Defendants. 6 7

8 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 9 By and through their counsel of record in this action, Plaintiff JEFFREY DIBBERN 10 ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ANTHONY KIDWELL, JEFFREY 11 KING, JAIME VELAZQUEZ, NGHIA DUONG, FABIAN SALAZAR, and GARETT 12 SANFORD ("Defendants") – the Parties – hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting 13 that the honorable Court enter a protective order regarding the confidential documents in in this 14 matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26; U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Cal., Local Rules 15 141.1, 143, and 302(c)(2); and any applicable Orders of the Court] as follows: 16 1. INTRODUCTION 17 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 19 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 21 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated 22 Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on 23 all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 24 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 25 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 26 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 27 28 1 under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards 2 that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 3 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 The parties maintain that good cause exists for entry of a protective order in this action. 5 Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2014). This civil rights action arises out of 6 the events set forth in Plaintiff’s Operative Complaint which seeks damages for: (1) Violation of 7 the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution- Excessive Force; (2) Violation of the Fourteenth 8 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution- Denial of Medical Care; (3) Monell- Municipal Liability for 9 Unconstitutional Custom or Policy; (4) Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights; (5) Violation of 10 Caifornia Civil Code § 52.1; (6) Battery/Assault; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 11 and (8) Negligence. 12 This litigation is in the early stages of discovery. The Parties contend that some of the 13 documents and information that will be produced during the discovery process contain confidential 14 information. Specifically, Defendant Officers are peace officers whose personnel records are 15 confidential under California law. Portions of police personnel records may be disclosed, as well 16 as documents reflecting policies, functioning, training, schedules, or other operational details of 17 law enforcement, and these must also be protected from public disclosure in order to ensure the 18 safety and security of law enforcement and the public. The personnel records warrant special 19 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 20 action. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 21 confidential employment and personnel information relating to a peace officer which is otherwise 22 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 23 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 24 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the Parties’ 25 representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential records and 26 information, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 27 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 28 1 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 2 of such material in connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at the 3 end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 4 justified in this matter. The Parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential 5 without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in a 6 confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should 7 not be part of the public record of this case. 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: Jeffrey Dibbern v. City of Bakersfield, et al., Case No.: 1:22-cv-00723- 10 CDB, pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 12 information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 14 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 15 of Civil Procedure 26(c). 16 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 17 staff). 18 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that 19 it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 21 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 22 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 23 responses to discovery in this matter.

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

Dibbern v. City of Bakersfield, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Dibbern v. City of Bakersfield (Dibbern v. City of Bakersfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aron Oliner v. John Kontrabecki
745 F.3d 1024 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)