Eric Rios v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 27, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-04782
StatusUnknown

This text of Eric Rios v. County of Los Angeles (Eric Rios v. County of Los Angeles) 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
Eric Rios v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 ERIC RIOS, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-04782-MEMF-MBK 13 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 14 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, TY SHELTON 16 and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 1. GENERAL 21 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 22 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 23 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 24 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 25 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 26 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 27 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 28 1 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 2 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 3 set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 4 them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 5 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 8 This action involves information which is privileged or otherwise protected 9 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, case decisions or common law. 10 Specifically, this action concerns an incident on March 3, 2023, in which Plaintiff 11 ERIC RIOS alleges Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and Deputy TY 12 SHELTON, used excessive force in violation of the 4th Amendment and also alleges 13 municipal liability, negligence, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional 14 distress and violation of the Bane Act, including if this case were removed to or refiled 15 in state court in California. Defendants have denied the material allegations. Current 16 and anticipated future discovery requests include private and confidential information 17 of the parties and of third persons, medical records and other information the Parties 18 regard as private, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department investigative and 19 personnel records which Defendants contend contain sensitive and personal 20 information not generally made available to the public. Defendants contend that there 21 is good cause and a particularized need for a protective order to preserve the interests 22 of confidentiality in such materials, including the privacy in peace officer personnel 23 file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the following 24 reasons. 25 Defendants contend that, first, peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 26 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 27 underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 28 of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 1 (9th Cir. 1990); Halton v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 2 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that "while "[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 3 discovery disputes involving federal claims," the "state privilege law which is 4 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 5 privilege law to discovery disputes"); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 6 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based "privacy rights 7 [that] are not inconsequential" in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal 8 Code§§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code§§ 1040-1047. Defendants contend that 9 uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 10 party and non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 11 Defendants contend that, second, municipalities and law enforcement agencies 12 have federal deliberative process privilege, federal official information privilege, and 13 federal law enforcement investigatory privilege interests in the personnel files of their 14 peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that 15 contain critical self-analysis and internal deliberation/decision-making or 16 evaluation/analysis - potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical 17 portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of 18 supervisory records or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or 19 for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033- 20 1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc'y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092- 21 1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 22 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 24 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 Additionally, Defendants contend that certain investigative and personnel file 26 records are restricted from disclosure pursuant to applicable California law, including 27 Cal. Penal Code 832.7(b)(5), and that uncontrolled release is likely to result in: 28 needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party 1 witness information and statements and related legitimate law enforcement 2 investigations/interests; and a chilling of open and honest discussion regarding and/or 3 investigation into alleged misconduct that can erode a public entity's ability to identify 4 and/or implement any remedial measures that may be required. Accordingly, 5 Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing such, dissemination of 6 confidential information and records in the case can and will likely substantially 7 impair and harm defendant public entity's interests in candid self-critical analysis, 8 frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 9 the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers' 10 families and associates, and protecting the privacy of peace officers. 11 The parties acknowledge that, on January 1, 2019, SB 1421, “The Right to 12 Know Act” and Assembly Bill 748 went into effect. Plaintiffs contend that these laws 13 made all use of force records “public” records that must be produced. See Becerra v. 14 Superior Court, (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 897 (the records here must be produced under 15 Penal Code Section 832.7 and Gov. Code § 6254 as amended by Senate Bill 1421) 16 See also Walnut Creek Police Officers' Association v. City of Walnut Creek, (2019) 17 33 Cal.App.5th 940. 18 The Defendants have or likely will also assert claims of privilege with respect 19 to aspects of the subject police officers’ background files that contain their respective 20 social security numbers, and sensitive personal information such as private contact 21 information, credit checks, family history information, DMV records, birth records, 22 DMV and educational records, and medical and/or mental health records. Defendants 23 contend that the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department has scrupulously 24 maintained the confidentiality of such information, and has invoked the official 25 information privilege with respect to such information.

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

Related

Walnut Creek Police Officers' Ass'n v. City of Walnut Creek
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 398 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eric Rios v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-rios-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.