Frank Benavente v. Albert Alvarado

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 19, 2023
Docket5:23-cv-00266
StatusUnknown

This text of Frank Benavente v. Albert Alvarado (Frank Benavente v. Albert Alvarado) 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
Frank Benavente v. Albert Alvarado, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (SBN 144074) 2 dalekgalipo@yahoo.com Marcel F. Sincich, Esq. (SBN 319508) 3 msincich@galipolaw.com Benjamin S. Levine, Esq. (SBN 342060) 4 blevine@galipolaw.com 21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310 5 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 347-3333 6 Facsimile: (818) 347-4118 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FRANK BENAVENTE and 8 NICOLE VENTRESS

9 James R. Touchstone, SBN 184584 jrt@jones-mayer.com 10 Denise L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com 11 JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 12 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 13 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

14 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF ONTARIO and ALBERT ALVARADO 15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 FRANK BENAVENTE; and Case No. 5:23-cv-00266-SSS-KK NICOLE VENTRESS, Judge: Hon. Sunshine S. Sykes 20 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato 21 Plaintiffs, 22 vs. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 23 PROTECTIVE ORDER

24 ALBERT ALVARADO; CITY OF [NOTE CHANGES MADE BY COURT] 25 ONTARIO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27

28 1 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Defendants, ALBERT 3 ALVARADO and CITY OF ONTARIO, and Plaintiff FRANK BENAVENTE and 4 NICOLE VENTRESS (collectively "the Parties"), by their undersigned counsel, 5 agree to be bound to the terms of the following Protective Order. The Parties 6 represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include the production of 7 information and/or documents that are confidential and/or privileged including the 8 production of peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the 9 Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, 10 educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) 11 Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, 12 appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, 13 concerning an event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a 14 peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer 15 16 performed his or her duties including compelled statements by peace officers unless 17 specifically denoted as “not confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. 18 Defendants contend that such information is privileged as official information. 19 Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also 20 Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 21 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require 22 the production of certain San Bernardino County Sheriffs’ Office Policies and 23 Procedures not available to the public and the public disclosure of which could 24 comprise officer safety, raise security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace 25 officer personnel file information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies 26 and procedures are hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". 27 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 28 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace officers 1 whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that the risk 2 of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees due to 3 the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the benefit of 4 public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the potential 5 disadvantages are great. 6 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate 7 pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See Fed. 8 R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 9

10 SO STIPULATED 11

12 Respectfully submitted, 13

14 Dated: May 18, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF DALE K. GALIPO 15

16 By s/Marcel F. Sincich 17 Dale K. Galipo 18 Marcel F. Sincich 19 Benjamin S. Levine Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 20 FRANK BENAVENTE and 21 NICOLE VENTRESS

23 Dated: May 18, 2023 JONES MAYER 24

25 By: s/Denise L. Rocawich 26 JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE DENISE L. ROCAWICH 27 Attorneys for Defendants, 28 CITY OF ONTARIO and ALBERT 1 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 PER THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND GOOD CAUSE 3 APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms and conditions of this 4 Protective Order shall govern the handling of Discovery Materials containing 5 Confidential Information in matter of Frank Benavente et al. v. City of Ontario et 6 al., Case No.: 5:23-cv-00266-SSS-KK ("the Litigation"): 7

8 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 9 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 10 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 11 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 12 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 13 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 14 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 15 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 16 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 17 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 18 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 19 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 20 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 21 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 22

23 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 24 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court recognizes that 25 pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include the production of information 26 and/or documents that are confidential and/or privileged including the production of 27 peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Court agrees 28 includes: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational 1 and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical 2 history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or 3 discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event 4 or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer 5 perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or 6 her duties including compelled statements by peace officers except such information 7 as is deemed “not confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Such 8 information is privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 9 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 10 N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 11 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Frank Benavente v. Albert Alvarado, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-benavente-v-albert-alvarado-cacd-2023.