Estate of David Barefield Sr. v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Susana Alcala Wood (SBN 156366) Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805) Sean D. Richmond (SBN 210138) 2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN srichmond@cityofsacramento.org 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Scott P. Thorne (SBN 326917) 3 Sacramento, California 95814 sthorne@cityofsacramento.org 4 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Kate D.L. Brosseau (SBN 345596) Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 kbrosseau@cityofsacramento.org 5 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com CITY OF SACRAMENTO paul@markmerin.com 915 I Street, Room 4010 6 Sacramento, CA 95814-2608 7 Robert L. Chalfant (State Bar No. 203051) Telephone: (916) 808-5346 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. CHALFANT Facsimile: (916) 808-7455 8 13620 Lincoln Way, Suite 325 Auburn, California 95603 Attorneys for Defendants 9 Telephone: (916) 647-7728 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO E-Mail: robert@rchalfant.com POLICE DEPARTMENT, KATHERINE 10 LESTER, KYLE STEDMAN, JARED KISER, 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DILLON BORTMAS, RYAN HANCOCK, ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., LATAURUSS HARRIS, CASEY DIONNE, 12 DAVID BAREFIELD II, AARON BAREFIELD, ARMANDO SANDOVAL, HERIBERTO FINAS BAREFIELD, and LOIS BAREFIELD BASULTO, and MARTIN TELLERIA 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 17 ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., Case No. 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP DAVID BAREFIELD II, AARON BAREFIELD, 18 FINAS BAREFIELD, and LOIS BAREFIELD, STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES; 19 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER

20 vs. 21 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, KATHERINE 22 LESTER, KYLE STEDMAN, JARED KISER, DILLON BORTMAS, RYAN HANCOCK, 23 LATAURUSS HARRIS, CASEY DIONNE, 24 ARMANDO SANDOVAL, HERIBERTO BASULTO, and MARTIN TELLERIA, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 1 STIPULATION 2 A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION 3 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 4 in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from 5 public disclosure is warranted. Plaintiffs have not been permitted to view the materials described in this 6 stipulated protective order and, thus, are unable to form an opinion as to whether protection is necessary. 7 The Parties acknowledge that this protective order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 8 or discovery activity, and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items 9 that are entitled to such protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Parties further 10 acknowledge that this protective order does not entitle any party to file information designated as 11 protected or confidential under seal, where Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be 12 followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to 13 file material under seal. 14 B. DEFINITIONS 15 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 16 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 17 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action 18 consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 19 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendants 20 designate as “Confidential” and described in Section C. 21 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 22 stipulated protective order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined 23 in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection pursuant to 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information shall be 25 used solely for purposes of this Action. Such Confidential information may be disclosed only to the 26 categories of persons and under the conditions described in this Order. Confidential information shall not 27 be used by the non-designating party for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all 28 parties to this action or as authorized by further order of the Court. 1 4. “Plaintiffs” shall mean the Estate of David Barefield SR., David Barefield II, Aaron 2 Barefield, Finas Barefield, and Lois Barefield. 3 5. “Defendants” shall mean the City of Sacramento, Sacramento Police Department, 4 Katherine Lester, Kyle Stedman, Jared Kiser, Dillon Bortmas, Ryan Hancock, Latauruss Harris, Casey 5 Dionne, Armando Sandoval, Heriberto Basulto, And Martin Telleria. 6 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants, collectively, as identified above. 7 C. INFORMATION COVERED 8 Covered Information: 9 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under 10 this stipulated protective order is limited to the following: 11 1. Personnel Files of Kyle Stedman (RFP # 33–41) 12 2. Personnel Files of Jared Kiser (RFP # 42–50) 13 3. Personnel Files of Dillon Bortmas (RFP # 51–58) 14 4. Personnel Files of Ryan Hancock (RFP # 59–66) 15 5. Personnel Files of Latauruss Harris (RFP # 67–75) 16 6. Personnel Files of Casey Dionne (RFP # 76–83) 17 7. Personnel Files of Armando Sandoval (RFP # 84–91) 18 8. Personnel Files of Heriberto Basulto (RFP # 92–99) 19 9. Personnel Files of Martin Telleria (RFP # 100–107) 20 Further, these personnel files will be redacted pre-production to remove personal identifying 21 information for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, including dates of birth, social 22 security numbers, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, credit card information, banking account 23 information, passwords, insurance policy numbers, driver’s license or passport numbers, and the names 24 of government employees’ relatives. The personnel files will be identified as “CONFIDENTIAL” on the 25 face of the document. 26 Particularized Need for Protection: 27 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, particularized 28 need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order because the 1 information contained in the personnel files is private. Defendants represent to the Court and Plaintiffs 2 that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated protective order are limited solely to those 3 which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and does not include 4 information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop 5 of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). 6 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order is for 8 the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of 9 resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the Parties and the Court from conducting 11 the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection, in favor of a procedure 12 whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants’ good faith representations of the need 13 for protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986). As a 14 result, production may be made with this stipulated protective order in place and, if necessary, it will 15 permit discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for protection. 16 D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” and produced 18 subject to this stipulated protective order: 19 1. The Parties will designate the Confidential documents as confidential by affixing a mark 20 labelling them “Confidential.” 21 2. The Confidential documents may only be disclosed to the following persons: 22 a. Plaintiffs, Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of the Law Office of Mark E. 23 Merin, and any partners and associates in that office; 24 b. Defendants, Susana Alcala Wood, Sean D. Richmond, Scott P. Thorne, and Kate 25 D.L. Brosseau of the Sacramento City Attorney’s Office, and any partners and associates in that office; 26 c. Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel or support staff regularly employed by 27 counsel referred to in subparts (a) and (b) immediately above, including stenographic deposition 28 reporters or videographers retained in connection with this action; 1 d. Court personnel, including stenographic reporters or videographers engaged in 2 proceedings as are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial in the civil action; 3 e. Any expert, consultant, or investigator retained in connection with this action; 4 f. The finder of facts at the time of trial, subject to the court’s rulings on in limine 5 motions and objections of counsel; and 6 g. Witnesses during their depositions in this action. If confidential documents are 7 used in the deposition, the documents must be identified as “Confidential” and the portion of the 8 deposition in which the documents are described should also be considered confidential. 9 3. Information covered by this stipulated protective order does not automatically entitle the 10 Parties to file such information or documents with the Court under seal. Any request to seal documents is 11 governed by Local Rule 141. If the Confidential documents are filed with any motion or other pleading, a 12 party may seek permission from the Court to file the Confidential Documents under seal according to 13 Local Rule 141. If permission is granted, the Confidential documents will be filed and served in 14 accordance with Local Rule 141. 15 4. The designation of the Confidential documents as “Confidential” and the subsequent 16 production thereof is without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose the admissibility of the 17 Confidential documents or information contained therein. 18 5. Any party or non-party may challenge a Confidential designation at any time. A party or 19 non-party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a 20 challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed. The challenging party shall initiate the 21 dispute resolution process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and 22 describing the basis for each challenge. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith 23 and must begin the process by conferring directly (in person or voice-to-voice dialogue; other forms of 24 communication are not sufficient) within seven (7) days of the date of service of notice. In conferring, the 25 challenging party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality designation was not proper 26 and must give the designating party an opportunity to review the designated material, to reconsider the 27 circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, to explain the basis for the chosen designation. 28 A challenging party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this 1 meet and confer process first or establishes that the designating party is unwilling to participate in the 2 meet and confer process in a timely manner. If the parties cannot resolve a challenge without Court 3 intervention, the designating party shall file and serve a motion for protective order/to retain 4 confidentiality pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 251 within twenty-one 5 (21) days of the initial notice of challenge or within seven (7) days of the parties agreeing that the meet 6 and confer process will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by the designating party to 7 make such a motion within twenty-one (21) days (or seven (7) days, if applicable) shall automatically 8 waive the “Confidential” designation for each challenged designation. In addition, the challenging party 9 may file a motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing 10 so. The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the designating party, 11 consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Unless the designating party has waived the 12 confidentiality designation by failing to file a motion for protective order/to retain confidentiality as 13 described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to 14 which it is entitled under the designating party’s designation until the Court rules on the challenge. 15 6. Should the Confidential documents or any information contained therein be disclosed, 16 through inadvertence or otherwise, to any person not authorized to receive it under this stipulated 17 protective order, the disclosing person(s) shall promptly (a) inform counsel for the Defendants of the 18 recipient(s) and the circumstances of the unauthorized disclosure to the relevant producing person(s) and 19 (b) use best efforts to bind the recipient(s) to the terms of this stipulated protective order. 20 7. The Confidential documents shall not lose its confidential status because it was 21 inadvertently or unintentionally disclosed to a person not authorized to receive it under this stipulated 22 protective order. 23 8. The protections conferred by this stipulated protective order cover the information defined 24 above, as well as (1) any information copied or extracted from Confidential documents; (2) all copies, 25 excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Confidential documents; and (3) any testimony, conversations, 26 or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Confidential documents. However, the 27 protections conferred by this stipulated protective order do not cover: (A) any information that is in the 28 public domain at the time of disclosure or which subsequently becomes part of the public domain after its 1 disclosure, including becoming part of the public record through public filings, trial, mandatory 2 disclosures (e.g., California Penal Code § 832.7), or otherwise; and (B) any information known prior to 3 the disclosure or obtained after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and 4 under no obligation of confidentiality. 5 9. This stipulated protective order shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to 6 be binding on all parties and affected persons until this litigation terminates, subject to any subsequent 7 modifications of this stipulated protective order for good cause shown by this Court or any Court having 8 jurisdiction over an appeal of this action. Upon termination of this litigation, the Parties agree the 9 stipulated protective order shall continue in force as a private agreement between the Parties. Any 10 violation of this agreement shall be subject to appropriate legal remedies, including but not limited to 11 injunctive relief, monetary damages, and sanctions as determined by this Court. 12 10. The Parties may request additional records to be subject to this stipulated protective order. 13 If a Party believes a document to be produced should be subject to this stipulated protective order, the 14 parties must meet and confer. If there is agreement, the Parties shall submit an amendment to this 15 stipulated protective order to identify the additional documents. If the Parties cannot agree, the Party 16 seeking protection shall file a motion for protective order pursuant to the terms of Local Rule 251. 17 14. During the pendency of this lawsuit, the Court may (a) make such amendments, 18 modifications, and/or additions to this stipulated protective order as deemed appropriate upon good cause 19 shown; and (b) adjudicate any dispute arising under it. 20 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 21 Dated: May 20, 2025 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 22 /s/ Mark E. Merin 23 By: __________________________________ 24 Mark E. Merin 25 Paul H. Masuhara

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 26 ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., 27 DAVID BAREFIELD II, AARON BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and LOIS BAREFIELD 28 1 || Dated: May 20, 2025 Respectfully Submitted, 5 CITY OF SACRAMENTO

3 /s/ Scott P. Thorne (as authorized on May 20, 2025) 4 By: Sean D. Richmond 5 Scott P. Thorne 6 Kate D.L. Brosseau Attorneys for Defendants 7 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, KATHERINE 8 LESTER, KYLE STEDMAN, JARED KISER, 9 DILLON BORTMAS, RYAN HANCOCK, LATAURUSS HARRIS, CASEY DIONNE, 10 ARMANDO SANDOVAL, HERIBERTO BASULTO, and MARTIN TELLERIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ORDER 20 The parties’ stipulation is GRANTED. 21 22 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 / —— Dated: _ May 21, 2025 q_——. JEREMY D. PETERSON 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 a