Jeanne Rodriguez v. County of San Bernardino

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 8, 2023·No. 5:21-cv-01471·Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:21-cv-01471-MEMF-SHK Document 48 Filed 03/08/23 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:367

1 Shannon L. Gustafson (SBN 228856) sgustafson@lynberg.com 2 Anita K. Clarke (SBN 321015) aclarke@lynberg.com A Professional Corporation 4 1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite #1450 Orange, California 92868 5 (714) 937-1010 Telephone (714) 937-1003 Facsimile 6 Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 7

10 11 JEANNE RODRIGUEZ, KAYLA CASE NO. 5:21-cv-01471-MEMF-SHK

12 FERRER and THE ESTATE OF Assigned for All Purposes to: JIMMY RAY FERRER, by and through Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong 13 it successor in interest. JEANNE Courtroom 8B, Magistrate Shashi H. Kewalramani [DISCOVERY MATTER] 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 16 vs. ORDER

17 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a public entity, UNNAMED COUNTY Trial Date: TBD 18 DEPUTY SHERIFFS, individuals, and Complaint filed: April 19, 2022 19 DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive

20 Defendant.

21 22 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 23 By and through their counsel of record in this action, Plaintiffs JEANNE 24 RODRIGUEZ, KAYLA FERRER and THE ESTATE OF JIMMY FERRER, by and 25 through it successor in interest, JEANNE RODRIGUEZ (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant 26 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (“Defendant”), collectively “the parties” hereby 27 stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the Honorable Court enter a 28 1 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:21-cv-01471-MEMF-SHK Document 48 Filed 03/08/23 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:368

1 protective order re confidential documents in this matter (and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 2 P. Rules 5, 2, 7, and 26, as well as U.S. Dist. Ct. C.D. Cal. Local Rules 7-1 and 52- 3 4.1; and any applicable Orders of the Court) as follows: 4 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 5 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 6 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 7 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 8 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 9 following Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 10 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 11 it affords from the public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information 12 or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 13 principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 14 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 15 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 16 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 17 material under seal. 19 This action is likely to involve interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 20 officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for 21 the following reasons. 22 First, Defendant contends that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 23 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 24 underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 25 of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 26 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 27 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 28 2 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:21-cv-01471-MEMF-SHK Document 48 Filed 03/08/23 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:369

1 discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 2 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 3 privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 4 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 5 [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 6 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendant further contends that 7 uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 8 non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 9 Second, Defendant contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 10 have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 11 privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 12 and/or attorney work product protection interests in the personnel files of their peace 13 officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 14 critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 15 communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – 16 potentially including but not limited to evaluative/ analytical portions of Internal 17 Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 18 or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 19 obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 20 Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 21 1997); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n. 4 (1995); Kelly v. City of San 22 Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176- 23 177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 24 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th 25 Cir. 1988). Defendant further contends that such personnel file records are restricted 26 from disclosure by the public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable 27 California law and that uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of 28 3 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:21-cv-01471-MEMF-SHK Document 48 Filed 03/08/23 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:370

1 officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and 2 statements and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/ interests; and a 3 chilling of open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 4 misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any 5 remedial measures that may be required. 6 Third, Defendant contends that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 7 as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 8 fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 9 compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 10 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., Amend V. 11 Accordingly, Defendant contends that, without a protective order preventing 12 such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 13 impair defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, frank internal 14 deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving the safety of 15 witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ families and 16 associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and preventing pending 17 investigations from being detrimentally undermined by publication of private, 18 sensitive, or confidential information – as can and often does result in litigation. 19 1.2. Plaintiffs do not agree with and does not stipulate to Defendant’s 20 contentions herein above, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall 21 resolve the parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and 22 claimed privileges set forth above.

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

Jeanne Rodriguez v. County of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Jeanne Rodriguez v. County of San Bernardino (Jeanne Rodriguez v. County of San Bernardino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles
710 P.2d 329 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)
Tuite v. Henry
181 F.R.D. 175 (District of Columbia, 1998)