Estate of Adam Preston Adams v. County of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 13, 2025
Docket5:24-cv-01447
StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Adam Preston Adams v. County of San Bernardino (Estate of Adam Preston Adams v. County of San Bernardino) 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
Estate of Adam Preston Adams v. County of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 || Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) 9 || eugene. ramirez@ manningkass.com Kayleigh A. Andersen (State Bar No. 306442) 3 || kayleigh.andersen@manningkass.com 4 David L. Fleck (State Bar No. 192912) david fleck @ manningkass.com 5 || MANNING & KASS 6 ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor 7||Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 8 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 9 10 Attorneys for Defendants San Bernardino County, San Bernardino 2 11 || County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff =< Shannon D. Dicus, Brett Chandler, Brett © Patten, Antonio Acosta, Marco Barragan, = 13 || Chris Kelly, Angel Munoz, Haley English, 2 14 || and Jeffrey Haga = 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA iM ESTATE OF ADAM PRESTON Case No. 5:24-cv-01447-KK-(SHKx) |] ADAMS, by and through successor in Assigned to Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato 19 interest, Jennifer Quintero; JENNIFER Magistrate Shashi H. Kewlaramani QUINTERO, individually, 20 as AMENDED STIPULATED 21 Plaintitt, PROTECTIVE 22 y. ORDER 23 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a 24 || public entity; SAN BERNARDINO 95 || COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; 26 || SHERIFF SHANNON D. DICUS, an 77 || individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 28 Defendants.

l Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 2 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 3 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 4 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 5 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 6 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 7 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 8 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 9 || under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 10 || Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 2 11 || file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the x 12 || procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 13 || seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. S 14)/1. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 This action is expected to involve the disclosure of highly sensitive and 16 || confidential information, including both (1) medical and personal records and (2) 17 || law enforcement personnel records and related materials. The parties agree that 18 || special protection from public disclosure—and from use for any purpose other than 19 || the prosecution of this case—is warranted. 20 1.1 Medical and Personal Confidential Information 21 This case may involve the production of private medical and mental health 22 || records, autopsy reports, and other sensitive documents related to the death at issue. 23 || These records include, but are not limited to, HIPAA-protected health care 24 || information, as well as confidential information concerning third parties and non- 25 || parties. The parties further anticipate the disclosure of personal identifying 26 || information, background investigation materials, and other documents generally 27 || unavailable to the public or protected by law. 28 The parties agree that such materials are protected under federal and state

1 || privacy laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 2 || HIPAA), and should not be disclosed outside the litigation. The need to preserve 3 || the confidentiality of this information, particularly with respect to individuals not 4 || party to the action, supports the entry of a protective order. 5 1.2 Law Enforcement Personnel Records and Privileged Law 6 Enforcement Materials 7 Separately, Defendants contend that good cause exists for a protective order 8 || to prevent the disclosure of peace officer personnel records and associated 9 || investigative materials. These records include internal police procedures, 10 || investigative analyses, and legal communications, the release of which could harm 2 11 || public safety, impair law enforcement functions, and intrude on officers’ privacy. x 12 First, Defendants assert that peace officers have a reasonable expectation of 13 || privacy in their personnel records, a protection recognized under both federal law S$ 14 || and California’s Pitchess statutes. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 15 || 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallion v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16 || 14665, at *2—3, *12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 17 || 613 n.4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995); cf. Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code 18 || §§ 1040-1047. They argue that unrestricted disclosure of these materials could 19 || endanger officers, non-party witnesses, and their families or associates. 20 Second, Defendants assert that these records are protected by several federal 21 || privileges, including the deliberative process privilege, the official information 22 || privilege, the law enforcement privilege, and the attorney-client privilege (and 23 || attorney work product doctrine). These privileges apply especially to materials 24 || involving internal evaluations, critical self-analysis, or legal advice, such as Internal 25 || Affairs reports, supervisory assessments, and documents prepared at the direction of 26 || counsel. See Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-71 (N.D. Cal. 1987); 27 || Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-95 (9th Cir. 28 || 1997); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-77 (D.D.C. 1998); Admiral Ins. Co. v.

1 || U.S. Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants contend that 2 || disclosure would undermine law enforcement’s ability to obtain candid input from 3 || witnesses, conduct effective investigations, and implement necessary reforms. 4 Third, Defendants note that peace officers may be compelled to provide 5 || statements in connection with internal investigations, unlike private citizens. They 6 || argue that the involuntary nature of such disclosures makes public release 7 || fundamentally unfair. See Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. 3d 822, 828-30 8 || (1985); cf. ULS. Const. amend. V. 9 1.3. Joint Basis for Protective Order 10 The parties jointly agree that a protective order is necessary to facilitate the 2 11 || exchange of discovery while minimizing the risk of harm to privacy, safety, and x 12 || privilege interests. In the absence of such an order, sensitive and legally protected 13 || information may be improperly disclosed, creating needless complications and S$ 14 || burdens for the Court. 15 Accordingly, the parties request entry of a protective order to expedite the 16 || flow of discovery, promote efficient resolution of confidentiality disputes, ensure 17 || appropriate use of confidential materials in preparation for and during trial, and 18 || govern the handling of such materials following the conclusion of litigation. 19 The parties further agree that no information will be designated confidential 20 || without a good-faith belief that it is non-public and subject to protection under 21 || applicable law. Confidential designations will not be made for tactical reasons or to 22 || obstruct discovery. 23 || 2. DEFINITIONS 24 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 25 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 26 || designation of information or items under this Order. 27 23 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 28 || of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for

1 || protection under

Related

Earl J. Reopell v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
936 F.2d 12 (First Circuit, 1991)
Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles
710 P.2d 329 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)
Tuite v. Henry
181 F.R.D. 175 (District of Columbia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Estate of Adam Preston Adams v. County of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-adam-preston-adams-v-county-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2025.