Justin Cody Harper v. City of Redlands

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 31, 2023
Docket5:23-cv-00695
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 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 2 dlr@jones-mayer.com JONES & MAYER 3 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 5 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

6 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF REDLANDS and OFFICER KOAHOU 7 LAW OFFICE OF SHARON J. BRUNNER 8 Sharon J. Brunner, Esq. (SBN: 229931) Email: sharonjbrunner@yahoo.com 9 14393 Park Avenue, Suite 100 Victorville, CA 92392 10 Tel: (760) 243-9997 11 Fax: (760) 843-8155

12 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. TERRELL James S. Terrell, Esq. (SBN. 170409) 13 Email: jim@talkterrell.com 15411 Anacapa Road 14 Victorville, California 92392 Tel: (760) 951-5850 15 Fax: (760) 952-1085

16 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JUSTIN CODY HARPER 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 JUSTIN CODY HARPER, Case No.: 5:23-cv-00695 SSS (KK) 20 21 v. Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 22 CITY OF REDLANDS, ORDER1 23 R DE ED PALA RTN MD ES NP TO ,L PI OCE L ICE OFFICER KOAHOU and DOES 1- 24 10, INCLUSIVE.

25 Defendants. 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 5 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 6 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 9 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 10 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to 13 include the production of information and/or documents that are confidential 14 and/or privileged including the production of peace officer personnel file 15 information and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal 16 data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment 17 history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election 18 of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and 19 (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or 20 transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer 21 perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his 22 or her duties including compelled statements by peace officers unless specifically 23 denoted as “not confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Defendants 24 contend that such information is privileged as official information. Sanchez v. 25 City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. 26 United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 27 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require 1 the production of certain Redlands Police Department Policies and Procedures 2 not available to the public and the public disclosure of which could comprise 3 officer safety, raise security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer 4 personnel file information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and 5 procedures are hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". 6 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 7 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 8 officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree 9 that the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government 10 employees due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend 11 that the benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while 12 the potential disadvantages are great. 13 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to 14 facilitate pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive 15 disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 16 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING 17 UNDER SEAL 18 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 19 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 20 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 21 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 22 from the court to file material under seal. 23 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to 24 judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 25 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. 26 See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 27 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); 1 Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) 2 (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific 3 showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support 4 and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a 5 party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 6 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 7 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be 8 filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 9 constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 11 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 12 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 13 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 14 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be 15 filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the 16 party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by 17 specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 18 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must 19 be provided by declaration. 20 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 21 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 22 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 23 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 24 portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 25 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 26 redaction is not feasible. 27 // 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit – Justin Cody Harper, an 3 individual v. City of Redlands, Redlands Police Officer Koahou, and Does 1-10, 4 inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-00695 SSS (KK). 5 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Justin Cody Harper v. City of Redlands, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justin-cody-harper-v-city-of-redlands-cacd-2023.