HENRY MORALES v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY K. MULLINS

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 9, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-02013
StatusUnknown

This text of HENRY MORALES v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY K. MULLINS (HENRY MORALES v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY K. MULLINS) 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
HENRY MORALES v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY K. MULLINS, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

11 JJOamNeEsS R M. TAoYucEhRst on e., SB N: 184 584 2 jrt@jones-mayer.com 2 Melissa M. Ballard,. SBN: 185739 3 mmb@jones-mayer.com 3 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 Fullerton, CA 92835 4 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 5 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 5 6 Attorneys for Defendants, 6 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO and DEPUTY K. MULLINS 7 7 8 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 10 11 11 HENRY MORALES, Case No. 5:25-CV-2013-SPG(DTBx) 12 12 Plaintiff, Assigned for all Purposes to: 13 Hon. Sherilyn Peace Garnett, Dept. 5C 13 vs. and Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow 14 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 15 DEPUTY K. MULLINS, AND DOE PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 DEPUTIES 1-10, 16 16 Defendants. 17 17 18 Action Filed: 08/03/2025 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 23 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 24 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 25 25 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 26 26 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 27 27 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 28 11 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 2 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 3 3 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 4 4 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 5 5 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 8 9 9 One or more of the Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case may 10 10 include matters that are confidential and privileged and may require the discovery 11 11 of and/or production of documents pertaining to the San Bernardino County Sheriff 12 12 Department’s investigation of the underlying criminal activities, as well as peace 13 13 officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Parties agree which 14 14 may include: (1) Personal data; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee 15 15 benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, 16 16 or investigations of complaints, if any, concerning an event or transaction in which 17 17 a peace officer may have participated, or which a peace officer may have perceived, 18 18 and may pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her 19 19 duties. Without waiving objections to the production of such documentation and 20 20 information, Defendants contend that such information is privileged as official 21 21 information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 22 22 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 23 23 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, 24 24 discovery may require depositions, written discovery and/or the production of 25 25 certain County of San Bernardino Sheriff Department policies and procedures and 26 26 peace officer training information the public disclosure of which may could 27 27 comprise officer safety, and/or raise security issues. Defendants contend that public 28 11 embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace officers whose 2 2 confidential information is disclosed. Defendants further contend that this potential 3 3 risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees due 4 4 to the nature of their profession. Finally, Defendants contend that the benefit of 5 5 public disclosure of confidential information is minimal while the potential 6 6 disadvantages may be are great. 7 7 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 8 8 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 9 9 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 10 10 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 11 11 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 12 12 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 13 13 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 14 14 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so without a good faith belief 15 15 that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 16 16 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 17 17 18 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19 19 2.1 Action: Henry Morales v. County of San Bernardino, Deputy K. 20 20 Mullins, and DOE Deputies 1-10, United District Court, Central District, Case No. 21 21 5:25-cv-02013. 22 22 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 23 23 designation of information or items under this Order. 24 24 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 25 25 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 26 26 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 27 27 the Good Cause Statement. 28 11 their support staff). 2 2 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 3 3 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 4 4 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 5 5 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 6 6 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 7 7 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 8 8 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 9 9 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 10 10 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 11 11 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 12 12 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 13 13 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 14 14 counsel. 15 15 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 16 16 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 17 17 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 18 18 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 19 19 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 20 20 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 21 21 2.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 22 22 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 23 23 support staffs). 24 24 2.12 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 25 25 Discovery Material in this Action. 26 26 2.13 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation 27 27 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 28 11 and their employees and subcontractors.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
HENRY MORALES v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY K. MULLINS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-morales-v-county-of-san-bernardino-deputy-k-mullins-cacd-2025.