Justin Cody Harper v. City of Redlands

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 31, 2023·No. 5:23-cv-00695·Unknown

Opinion

J jra tm @e js o nR e. s T -mou ac yh es r.t co on me, SBN 184584 Denise L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com JONES & MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF REDLANDS and OFFICER KOAHOU LAW OFFICE OF SHARON J. BRUNNER Sharon J. Brunner, Esq. (SBN: 229931) Email: sharonjbrunner@yahoo.com 14393 Park Avenue, Suite 100 Victorville, CA 92392 Tel: (760) 243-9997 Fax: (760) 843-8155

James S. Terrell, Esq. (SBN. 170409) Email: jim@talkterrell.com 15411 Anacapa Road Victorville, California 92392 Tel: (760) 951-5850 Fax: (760) 952-1085

Attorneys for Plaintiff, JUSTIN CODY HARPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUSTIN CODY HARPER, Case No.: 5:23-cv-00695 SSS (KK) v. Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE CITY OF REDLANDS, ORDER1 OFFICER KOAHOU and DOES 1- 10, INCLUSIVE.

Defendants. 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of 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 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 under the applicable legal principles. The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include the production of information and/or documents that are confidential and/or privileged including the production of peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties including compelled statements by peace officers unless specifically denoted as “not confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. 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 the production of certain Redlands Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the public and the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the potential disadvantages are great. Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. // 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit – Justin Cody Harper, an individual v. City of Redlands, Redlands Police Officer Koahou, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-00695 SSS (KK). 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “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. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designa

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

Justin Cody Harper v. City of Redlands, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Justin Cody Harper v. City of Redlands (Justin Cody Harper v. City of Redlands) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related