Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 17, 2025
Docket5:24-cv-02631
StatusUnknown

This text of Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana (Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana) 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
Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 | James R Touchstone, SBN 184584 ji@jones-mayer.com 2 elissa M. Ballard, Esq., SBN 185739 mmb@) ones-mayer.com 3 | JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 | Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: 446-1400 5 | Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 6 | Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FONTANA, OFFICER ALEX YANEZ 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION 10 ISABEL VALDEZ, an individual; Case No. 5:24-CV-02631-KK-SP 11 | JANE A.V. DOE, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Jessenia | Honorable Kenly Kiva Kato 12 | Torres; and JANE A.B. DOE, a minor, | Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym by and through her guardian ad litem —_| Courtroom 3 13 | Jessenia Torres; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 Plaintiffs, ORDER 15 v. 16 | CITY OF FONTANA, OFFICER ALEZ YANEZ, and DOES 1 through 17 | 20, inclusive 18 Defendants. 19 20 | 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of items both Defendants 22 | and Plaintiff allege are confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 23 | protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 24 | this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition 25 | the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge 26 | that this Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 27 | or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 28 | extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment TH [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 | under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 2 | Section 14.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 3 | confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 4 | be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 5 | the Court to file material under seal. 6| 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 One or more of the Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case may 8 | include matters that are confidential and privileged and may require the discovery of 9 | and/or production of documents pertaining to the City of Fontana Police Department’s 10 | investigation of the underlying criminal activities, as well as peace officer personnel 11 | file information and/or documents which the Parties agree which may include: (1) 12 | Personal data; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee 13 | advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of 14 | complaints, if any, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace officer may 15 | have participated, or which a peace officer may have perceived, and may pertaining to 16 | the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties. Without waiving 17 | objections to the production of such documentation and information, Defendants 18 | contend that such information is privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of 19 | Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States 20 | Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 21 | 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require depositions, written 22 | discovery and/or the production of certain Fontana Police Department policies and 23 | procedures and peace officer training information the public disclosure of which may 24 | could comprise officer safety, and/or raise security issues. Defendants contend that 25 | public disclosure of such material and information poses a substantial risk of 26 | embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace officers whose confidential 27 | information is disclosed. Defendants further contend that this potential risk of harm to 28 | peace officers is greater than with other government employees due to the nature of

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 | their profession. Finally, Defendants contend that the benefit of public disclosure of 2 | confidential information is minimal while the potential disadvantages may be are great. 3 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 4 | resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 5 | information the parties are or may be entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 6 | parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 7 | 1n the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve 8 | the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 9 | is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 10 | tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief by the 11 | designating Party that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 12 | there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 13 | 3. DEFINITIONS 14 3.1. Action: This pending federal lawsuit, /sabel Valdez, et al. v. City of 15 Fontana, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-02631-KK-SP. 16 3.2. Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation of 17 information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 18 3.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how 19 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 20 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified 21 above in the Good Cause Statement. 22 3.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as 23 their support staff). 24 3.5. Designating Party: A Party or Nonparty that designates information or 25 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 26 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 27 3.6. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of 28 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 3: [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 2 things), that is produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 3 discovery in this matter. 4 3.7. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 5 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel 6 to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 7 3.8. In-House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 8 In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 9 other outside counsel. 10 3.9. Nonparty: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 11 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 12 3.10. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party 13 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 14 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated 15 with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes 16 support staff. 17 3.11. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 18 employees, consultants, retained experts, In-House Counsel, and Outside 19 Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 20 3.12.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isabel-valdez-v-city-of-fontana-cacd-2025.