Juan Pagan Jr. v. City of Fullerton

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 1, 2024
Docket8:23-cv-02492
StatusUnknown

This text of Juan Pagan Jr. v. City of Fullerton (Juan Pagan Jr. v. City of Fullerton) 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 Pagan Jr. v. City of Fullerton, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

11 James R. Touchstone, SBN 184584 jrt@jones-mayer.com 22 Denise L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com 33 JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 44 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 55 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

66 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF FULLERTON, RENE VALDES, JAIME ARROYO, GHARRETT 77 WILTSE, TRAVIS KOWALEC, MATTHEW LEVIN, SGT. DIAZ, CPL. MURPHY, CPL. CAZARES 88 SKAPIK LAW GROUP 99 Mark J. Skapik (SBN 164957) Geralyn L. Skapik (SBN 145055) 1100 Blair J. Berkley (SBN 222293) Matthew T. Falkenstein (SBN 333302) 1111 5861 Pine Avenue, Suite A-1 Chino Hills, California 91709 1122 Telephone: (909) 398-4404 Facsimile: (909) 398-1883 1133 Attorneys for Plaintiff JUAN PAGAN 1144 1155 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1166 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1177 SOUTHERN DIVISION

1188 JUAN PAGAN JR., an individual, Case No: 8:cv-23-02492 HDV-KES Judge: Hon. Hernan D. Vera 1199 Plaintiff,

2200 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 2211 ORDER

2222 CITY OF FULLERTON, RENE VALDES, an individual, JAIME 2233 ARROYO, an individual, GHARRETT WILTSE, an individual, 2244 TRAVIS KOWALEC, an individual, MATTHEW LEVIN, an individual, 2255 SGT. DIAZ, an individual, CPL. MURPHY, an individual, CPL. 2266 CAZARES, an individual and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 2277 Defendants. 11 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 33 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 44 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 55 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 66 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 77 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 88 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 99 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 1100 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 1111 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 1122 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 1133 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 1144 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1155 1166 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 1177 The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include 1188 the production of information and/or documents that are confidential and/or 1199 privileged including the production of peace officer personnel file information 2200 and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including 2211 marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home 2222 addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee 2233 benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, 2244 or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which a 2255 peace officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the 2266 manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties including compelled 2277 statements by peace officers unless specifically denoted as “not confidential”

pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Defendants contend that such information is 11 privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027,

22 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 33 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 44 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require the production of certain Fullerton 55 Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the public and the 66 public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise security issues, 77 and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file information and/or 88 documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are hereinafter referred 99 to as "Confidential Information". 1100 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 1111 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 1122 officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that 1133 the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees 1144 due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the 1155 benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the 1166 potential disadvantages are great. 1177 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate 1188 pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See 1199 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 2200 2211 2. DEFINITIONS 2222 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit. 2233 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 2244 designation of information or items under this Order. 2255 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 2266 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 2277 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in

the Good Cause Statement. 11 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as

22 their support staff). 33 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 44 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 55 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 66 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 77 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 88 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 99 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 1100 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 1111 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 1122 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1133 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 1144 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 1155 outside counsel. 1166 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 1177 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 1188 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 1199 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 2200 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 2211 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2222 2.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 2233 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 2244 support staffs). 2255 2.12 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2266 Discovery Material in this Action. 2277 2.13 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation

support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 11 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium)

22 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)
Juan Pagan Jr. v. City of Fullerton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-pagan-jr-v-city-of-fullerton-cacd-2024.