Frank Villaran v. County of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 23, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00979
StatusUnknown

This text of Frank Villaran v. County of San Bernardino (Frank Villaran 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
Frank Villaran v. County of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 James R. Touchstone, SBN 184584 jrt@jones-mayer.com 2 Denise Lynch Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com 3 JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 5 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

6 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 FRANK VILLARAN; FRANK Case No.: 5:25-cv-00979-KK-DTB 13 THOMAS VILLARAN; ERICA Judge: Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato SIMENTAL, individually and as Magistrate Judge: Hon. David T. Bristow 14 guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Minors

15 E.V. and J.V; MARISELA SIMENTAL, individually and as 16 guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Minor STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 17 LS., ORDER 18 Plaintiffs, 19 vs. 20 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; 21 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23

28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 11 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 12 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 13 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 14 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 16 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include 18 the production of information and/or documents that are confidential and/or 19 privileged including the production of peace officer personnel file information 20 and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including 21 marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home 22 addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee 23 benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, 24 or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace 25 officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the 26 manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties including compelled 27 statements by peace officers unless specifically denoted as “not confidential” 28 pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Defendants contend that such information is 1 privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 2 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 3 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 4 (1976). Further, discovery may require the production of certain San Bernardino 5 County Sheriffs’ Department Policies, Procedures and logs not available to the 6 public and the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise 7 security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file 8 information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are 9 hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". 10 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 11 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 12 officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that 13 the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees 14 due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the 15 benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the 16 potential disadvantages are great. 17 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate 18 pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See Fed. 19 R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 20 21 2. DEFINITIONS 22 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 23 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 24 designation of information or items under this Order. 25 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 26 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 27 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 28 the Good Cause Statement. 1 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 2 their support staff). 3 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 4 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 5 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 6 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 7 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 8 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 9 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 10 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 11 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 12 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 13 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 14 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 15 outside counsel. 16 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 17 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 18 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 19 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 20 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 21 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 22 2.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 23 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 24 support staffs). 25 2.12 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 26 Discovery Material in this Action. 27 28 1 2.13 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation 2 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 3 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 4 and their employees and subcontractors. 5 2.14 Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 6 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 7 2.15 Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 8 from a Producing Party. 9 10 3. SCOPE 11 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 12 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 13 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 14 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 15 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

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

Related

In Re W. J. Marshall Co.
3 F.2d 192 (S.D. Georgia, 1924)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Frank Villaran v. County of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-villaran-v-county-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2025.