Gabriel Hernandez v. City of Ontario and Does 1-10, Inclusive

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 8, 2026·No. 5:26-cv-00455·Unknown

Opinion

1 JONES MAYER James R. Touchstone, State Bar No. 184584 2 jrt@jones-mayer.com Thurgood M. Wynn, State Bar No. 345199 3 tmw@jones-mayer.com 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 Fullerton, California 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 5 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

6 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ONTARIO 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, Case No.: 5:26-cv-00455-DTB

12 Plaintiff, Assigned for all Purposes to: Hon. Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow 13 vs. Courtroom 4

14 CITY OF ONTARIO and DOES 1-10, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Inclusive, 15 Defendants. Action Filed: February 2, 2026 16 17 18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 21 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 22 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 23 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 24 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 25 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 26 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 27 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 28 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 1 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 2 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 3 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 One or more of the Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case 6 may include matters that are confidential and privileged and may require the 7 discovery of and/or production of documents pertaining to the City of Ontario 8 Police Department’s investigation of the underlying criminal activities, as well as 9 peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Parties agree 10 which may include: (1) Personal data; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of 11 employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) 12 Complaints, or investigations of complaints, if any, concerning an event or 13 transaction in which a peace officer may have participated, or which a peace 14 officer may have perceived, and may pertaining to the manner in which the peace 15 officer performed his or her duties. Without waiving objections to the production 16 of such documentation and information, such confidential materials and 17 information consist of, among other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or 18 protections under the following: United States Constitution, First Amendment; the 19 California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 20 832.7 and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et. seq; the Privacy 21 Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 22 of 1996 (HIPAA); the right to privacy; decisional law relating to such provisions; 23 and information otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 24 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that 25 such confidential materials and information is entitled to the Official Information 26 Privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); 27 see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th 28 Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, 1 discovery may require depositions, written discovery and/or the production of 2 certain City of Ontario Police Department policies and procedures and peace 3 officer training information the public disclosure of which may could comprise 4 officer safety, and/or raise security issues. Defendants contend that public 5 disclosure of such material and information poses a substantial risk of 6 embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace officers whose 7 confidential information is disclosed. Defendants further contend that this 8 potential risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government 9 employees due to the nature of their profession. Finally, Defendants contend that 10 the benefit of public disclosure of confidential information is minimal while the 11 potential disadvantages may be great. 12 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 13 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 14 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 15 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 16 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 17 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 18 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 19 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so without a good faith belief 20 that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 21 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: Gabriel Hernandez v. City of Ontario and DOES 1 through 24 10, inclusive, United District Court, Central District, Case No. 5:26-cv-0455. 25 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 26 designation of information or items under this Order. 27 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 28 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 1 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 2 the Good Cause Statement. 3 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 4 their support staff). 5 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 6 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 7 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 9 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 10 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 11 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 12 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 13 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 14 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 15 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 16 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 17 outside counsel. 18 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 19 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Gabriel Hernandez v. City of Ontario and Does 1-10, Inclusive, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Gabriel Hernandez v. City of Ontario and Does 1-10, Inclusive (Gabriel Hernandez v. City of Ontario and Does 1-10, Inclusive) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related