Julian Pulido v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 9, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-06266
StatusUnknown

This text of Julian Pulido v. County of Los Angeles (Julian Pulido v. County of Los Angeles) 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
Julian Pulido v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 || Mildred K. O'Linn (State Bar No. 159055) missy.olian@manningkass.com 2 || Craig Smith (State Bar No. 265676) Cregg Mad nating ain 3 || Joseph A. Gordon (State Bar No. 314564) joe. gor con(amanningkass.com 4||MANNING & KAS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 5||801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Fos Ange es, Cahtornig 90017-3012 6 || Lelephone: - NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT Facsimile: (13) 624-6999 7 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF 8 || WEST COVINA. MARTINEZ J514; and, OFFICER BOWMAN #418; 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 1 S 13 || JULIAN PULIDO, Case No. 2:23-cv-06266-SV W (JPRx) > District Judge: Stephen V. Wilson z 14 Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge: Jean P. Rosenbluth < = 15 V. |} COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE NGOZI CHUKWUEMEK, NP; TRINI | ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIAL || BUI, NP; MONIKA VILLAZON, NP; DOCUMENTS TAYLOR DOCTER, PGY3; MINA 18 || MASRI, D.O.; KEITH CARRILLO, NP; BEVERLY WELCH; TCHUISSE 19 |} HERMIONE, NP; MANUEL O. NATIVIDAD, M.D.; VERONICA 20 || HERNANDEZ-LARA, NP; REA Filed Date: 08/02/23 WHITMAN, PA; CHASE LUTHER, Trial Date: 05/15/24 21||M.D.; ROBERT PAQUETTE, M.D.; ZIBA DAYANI, PA; EKATERINA 22 || KOROL, NP; DINA VILLAPUDUA, PA; OLIVIA GOMEZ, M.D.; 23 || BRITTANY SLAUGHTER, PA; ALEXIS M. PETERS, M.D.; AUNG 24 || LIN, D.O.; CHRISTINA R. GHALY, M.D.; TIMOTHY BELAVICH, PH.D.; 25 || SEAN HENDERSON, M.D.; CITY OF WEST COVINA; MARTINEZ J514; 26 |} and, OFFICER BOWMAN #418; 27 Defendants. 28

1 | TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 2 By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiff JULIAN 3 || PULIDO and defendants CITY OF CITY OF WEST COVINA, MARTINEZ J514; and, OFFICER BOWMAN #418; and defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; || NGOZI CHUKWUEMEK, NP; TRINI BUI, NP; MONIKA VILLAZON, NP; 6||/ TAYLOR DOCTER, PGY3; MINA MASRI, D.O.; KEITH CARRILLO, NP; 7||BEVERLY WELCH; TCHUISSE HERMIONE, NP; MANUEL O. NATIVIDAD, 8 ||M.D.; VERONICA HERNANDEZ-LARA, NP; REA WHITMAN, PA; CHASE 9 || LUTHER, M.D.; ROBERT PAQUETTE, M.D.; ZIBA DAYANI, PA; EKATERINA KOROL, NP; DINA VILLAPUDUA, PA; OLIVIA GOMEZ, M.D.; BRITTANY 2 11 || SLAUGHTER, PA; ALEXIS M. PETERS, M.D.; AUNG LIN, D.O.; CHRISTINA |R. GHALY, M.D.; TIMOTHY BELAVICH, PH.D.; SEAN HENDERSON, M.D. 13 || (hereinafter "Defendants") — the parties — hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly 14 || requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order re confidential documents 15 || in this matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26 and any applicable Orders 16 || of the Court] — as follows: 17 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18|}1. INTRODUCTION. 19 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 22 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 23 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 24 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 25 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 26 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 27 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 28 || under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in

1 || Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 2 || file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 3 || procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 4 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 5 1.2. ©.GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 7 || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 8 || personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 9 || following reasons. 10 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 2 11 |/in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is x 12 || underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 13 || of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 2 14 || (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- = 15 || 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 16 || discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 18 || privilege law to discovery disputes’’); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 19 |/n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 20 || [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 21]1§§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 22 || uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 23 || non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 24 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 25 ||have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 26 || privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 28 || officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain

1 || critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 2 || communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis — 3 || potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 4 || Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 5 || or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 6 || obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 7\| Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 8 || 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 9 || 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 10 || Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 2 11 || vy. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 12 further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the 13 || public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 2 14 || uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; = 15/limpairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements 16 || and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of 17|lopen and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 18 || misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement 19 || any remedial measures that may be required. 20 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 21 )las other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 23 || compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 24 || 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V.

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)
Julian Pulido v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julian-pulido-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2024.