Gustavo Mares v. County of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 5, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-01099
StatusUnknown

This text of Gustavo Mares v. County of San Bernardino (Gustavo Mares 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
Gustavo Mares v. County of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

11 James R. Touchstone, SBN 184584 jrt@jones-mayer.com 22 Denise L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com 33 JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 44 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 55 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 Attorneys for Defendants 66

77 THE SEHAT LAW FIRM, P.L.C. Cameron Sehat, Esq. (SBN: 256535) 88 cameron@sehatlaw.com 5100 Campus Dr., Ste 200 99 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 825-5200 1100 Facsimile: (949) 313-5001

1111 Attorney for Plaintiff, Gustavo Mares

1133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1144 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1155 GUSTAVO MARES, Individually; Case No.: 5:22-CV-01099-FMO-KK

1166 Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin vs. Magistrate Judge: Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato 1177

1188 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED A Governmental Entity; DEVON PROTECTIVE ORDER 1199 STEUERWALD, Individually; JOSEPH MORA, Individually, and 2200 DOES 1 through 10,

2211 Defendants.

2277 11 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

22 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Defendants, COUNTY

33 OF SAN BERNARDINO, DEVON STUERWALD, and JOSEPH MORA, and

44 Plaintiff GUSTAVO MARES (collectively "the Parties"), by their undersigned

55 counsel, agree to be bound to the terms of the following Protective Order. The

66 Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include the

77 production of information and/or documents that are confidential and/or privileged

88 including the production of peace officer personnel file information and/or

99 documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including marital

1100 status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or

1111 similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4)

1122 Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or

1133 investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace

1144 officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the

1155 manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties including compelled

1166 statements by peace officers unless specifically denoted as “not confidential”

1177 pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Defendants contend that such information is

1188 privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027,

1199 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal.,

2200 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d

2211 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require the production of certain San

2222 Bernardino County Sheriffs’ Office Policies and Procedures not available to the

2233 public and the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise

2244 security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file

2255 information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are

2266 hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information".

2277 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a

substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 11 officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that

22 the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees

33 due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the

44 benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the

55 potential disadvantages are great.

66 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate

77 pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See

88 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c).

99 SO STIPULATED

1100 Dated: May 4, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 1111 JONES MAYER 1122

1133 By: s/Denise L. Rocawich 1144 JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE DENISE L. ROCAWICH 1155 Attorneys for Defendants

1177 Dated: May 4, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 1188 THE SEHAT LAW FIRM, PLC 1199

2200 By: s/Cameron Sehat 2211 CAMERON SEHAT 2222 Attorneys for Plaintiff

2277 11 [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

22 PER THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND GOOD CAUSE

33 APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms and conditions of this

44 Protective Order shall govern the handling of Discovery Materials containing

55 Confidential Information in matter of Mares v. County of San Bernardino et al.

66 USCD Case No. 22-CV-01099-FMO-KK ("the Litigation"):

77 1. Applicability of Order: This Order does not and will not govern any

88 trial proceedings in this Litigation, but will otherwise be applicable to and govern

99 the handling of documents, except for documents that are disclosed during

1100 discovery which would otherwise be publicly available, depositions, deposition

1111 exhibits, interrogatory responses, responses to requests for admissions, responses

1122 to requests for production of documents, and all other discovery obtained pursuant

1133 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Plaintiff in connection with the

1144 Litigation (this information hereinafter referred to as “Discovery Material”).

1155 2. Designation of Material: The Parties may designate Discovery

1166 Material that is in their possession, custody or control to be produced to Plaintiff as

1177 “Confidential Information” under the terms of this Order if the Parties believe in

1188 good faith reasonably believe that such Discovery Material contains non-public,

1199 confidential material as defined in section 4 below.

2200 3. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for

2211 Protection: When designating Discovery Material for protection as Confidential

2222 Information under this Order, the Parties must take care to limit any such

2233 designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards.

2244 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited.

2255 4. Confidential Information: For purposes of this Order, Confidential

2266 Information is any information and/or documents that Defendants believe in good

2277 faith to be Peace Officer Personnel File Information and/or Documents including:

(1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and 11 employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history;

22 (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or

33 discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an

44 event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer

55 perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his

66 or her duties including compelled statements unless specifically denoted as “not

77 confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Confidential Information is

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gustavo Mares v. County of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustavo-mares-v-county-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2023.