Estate of Mario Solis v. County of Riverside

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 1, 2024
Docket5:23-cv-00989
StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Mario Solis v. County of Riverside (Estate of Mario Solis v. County of Riverside) 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 Mario Solis v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP TONY M. SAIN, SB# 251626 2 E-Mail: Tony.Sain@lewisbrisbois.com LILIT ARABYAN, SB# 311431 3 E-Mail: Lilit.Arabyan@lewisbrisbois.com ABIGAIL J. R. McLAUGHLIN, SB# 313208 4 E-Mail: Abigail.McLaughlin@lewisbrisbois.com 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 5 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213.250.1800 6 Facsimile: 213.250.7900

7 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE 8 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, EDWARD 9 DELGADO, JAMES KRACHMER, and DAVID HOLM 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 ESTATE OF MARIO SOLIS, by and Case No. 5:23-cv-00989-HDV (SPx) through successor in interest, Sara [Hon. Hernán D. Vera, Dist. Judge; 15 Solis; SARA SOLIS, individually, Hon. Sheri Pym, M. Judge]

16 Plaintiffs, PROTECTIVE ORDER RE 17 vs. CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

18 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a public entity, RIVERSIDE COUNTY 19 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, in his 20 individual and official capacities; EDWARD DELGADO, JAMES 21 KRACHMER; DAVID HOLM; and DOES 1 through 10, individually, 22 jointly and severally,

23 Defendants. DISC. C/O TBD Trial Date: None Set 24 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES (“Stipulation for 25 Entry of Protective Order re Confidential Documents”), and pursuant to the Court’s 26 inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to the Court’s authority 27 under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States District 1 Court, Central District of California Local Rules; after due consideration of all of the 2 relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon such other evidence 3 or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in 4 furtherance of the interests of justice, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 7 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 8 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 9 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be 10 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 11 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 12 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 13 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 14 information or items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable 15 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 16 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 17 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 18 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 19 the court to file material under seal. 20 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 21 Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this 22 case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such 23 information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected 24 through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 25 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the 26 protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue 27 burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to 1 purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully 3 crafted protective order.”). 4 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 5 protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 6 personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 7 following reasons. 8 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 9 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 10 underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 11 of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 12 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 13 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 14 discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 15 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 16 privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 17 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 18 [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 19 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 20 uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 21 non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 22 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 23 have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 24 privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 25 (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 26 officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 27 critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 1 potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 2 Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 3 or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 4 obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 5 Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 6 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 7 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 8 Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 9 v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 10 further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the 11 public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 12 uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 13 impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and 14 related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open and 15 honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that can 16 erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial measures 17 that may be required. 18 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 19 as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 20 fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 21 compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 22 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Estate of Mario Solis v. County of Riverside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-mario-solis-v-county-of-riverside-cacd-2024.