Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 17, 2025·No. 5:24-cv-02631·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

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

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

Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana (Isabel Valdez v. City of Fontana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related