Juan Manuel Garcia v. Hemet Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 29, 2025
Docket5:24-cv-02185
StatusUnknown

This text of Juan Manuel Garcia v. Hemet Police Department (Juan Manuel Garcia v. Hemet Police Department) 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
Juan Manuel Garcia v. Hemet Police Department, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN MANUEL GARCIA, an Case No. 5:24-02185-DDP (SHK) individual, 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 14 HEMET POLICE DEPARTMENT, a FAC Filed: November 13, 2024 15 public entity; CITY OF HEMET, a public entity; OFFICER JACOB 16 HOBSON, individually; and DOES 1- 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 20 By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiff JUAN MANUEL 21 GARCIA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and defendants HEMET POLICE 22 DEPARTMENT, CITY OF HEMET, and OFFICER JACOB HOBSON (hereinafter 23 referred to collectively as “Defendants”) – the parties – hereby stipulate for the 24 purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order re 25 confidential documents in this matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26, 26 as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., Local Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and any applicable 27 Orders of the Court] – as follows: 1 1. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. 3 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 4 protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 5 personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 6 following reasons. 7 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 8 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 9 underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 10 of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 11 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 12 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 13 discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 14 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 15 privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 16 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 17 [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 18 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 19 uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 20 non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 21 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 22 have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 23 privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 24 (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 25 officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 26 critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 27 communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – 1 Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 2 or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 3 obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 4 Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 5 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 6 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 7 Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 8 v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 9 further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the 10 public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 11 uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 12 impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements 13 and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of 14 open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 15 misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement 16 any remedial measures that may be required. 17 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 18 as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 19 fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 20 compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 21 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 22 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 23 such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 24 impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 25 frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 26 the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ 27 families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and 1 publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information – as can and often does 2 result in litigation. 3 1.2. Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to Defendants’ 4 contentions herein above, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall 5 resolve the parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and 6 claimed privileges set forth above. 7 However, plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as 8 to preserve the respective interests of the parties without the need to further burden 9 the Court with such issues. Specifically, the parties jointly contend that, absent this 10 Stipulation and its associated Protective Order, the parties' respective privilege 11 interests may be impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its associated 12 Protective Order may avoid such harm by permitting the parties to facilitate discovery 13 with reduced risk that privileged and/or sensitive/confidential information will 14 become matters of public record. 15 1.3. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need 16 for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy 17 photographs, because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of these 18 sensitive interests, a Court Order should address these documents rather than a private 19 agreement between the parties. 20 1.4. The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby 21 jointly request that the honorable Court issue/enter, a Protective Order re confidential 22 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 23 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 24 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or 25 privilege claims in this section (§ 1), nor shall this section be construed as part of any 26 such Court Order. 27 / / / 1 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production 3 of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 4 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting or defending 5 this litigation would be warranted.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Juan Manuel Garcia v. Hemet Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-manuel-garcia-v-hemet-police-department-cacd-2025.