Kevin Lee Howard v. City of West Covina

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 14, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-08281
StatusUnknown

This text of Kevin Lee Howard v. City of West Covina (Kevin Lee Howard v. City of West Covina) 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
Kevin Lee Howard v. City of West Covina, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 || James R. Touchstone, SBN 184584 ones says: com 2 □□□ L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 ones-mayer.com J OMS & MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 || Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: 14) 446-1400 5 || Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 6 ptomeys for Defendants CITY OF WEST COVINA, OFFICER MUNOZ, OFFICER BRENES, OFFICER WEISCHEDEL, and OFFICER C. GONZALEZ

Peter L. Carr, IV, State Bar No. 256104 8 || E-Mail: peary@ther LClaweroup.com Na’Shaun L. Neal, State Bar No. 80 9 || E-Mail: pneal ithe ( laweroup.com PLC LA JP, 10 || 3756 Santa Rosalia Dr., Suite 326 Los Angeles, California 90008 11 || Telephone: ow 400-5890 Facsimile: (310) 400-5895 IZ Attorneys for Plaintiff KEVIN LEE HOWARD 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 || KEVIN LEE HOWARD, Case No.: CV19-08281 CBM (MRW) 7 Judge: Hon. Conseulo B. Marshall Plaintiff, 18 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 19 | CITY OF WEST COVINA; OFFICER | ORDER 20 | MATTHEW MUNOZ; OFFICER JOSHUA BRENES; OFFICER DOUG 21 | WEISCHEDEL:; OFFICER C. GONZALEZ; and DOES 1 through 10 Inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28

1 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Defendants CITY OF 3 | WEST COVINA, OFFICER MUNOZ, OFFICER BRENES, OFFICER WEISCHEDEL, 4 | and OFFICER C. GONZALEZ and Plaintiff KEVIN LEE HOWARD (collectively "the 5 || Parties"), by their undersigned counsel, agree to be bound to the terms of the 6 || following Protective Order. The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this 7 || case 1s likely to include the production of information and/or documents that are 8 || confidential and/or privileged including the production of peace officer personnel 9 || file information and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal 10 || data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment 11 || history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election 12 || of employee benefits: (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) 13 || Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in 14 || which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and 15 |] pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties 16 |] including compelled statements by peace officers. Defendants contend that such 17 |] information 1s privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 93 18 |] F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 19 | N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 20 || L-Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require the production of certain West 21 |} Covina Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the public and 22 || the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise security issues, 23 || and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file information and/or 24 || documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are hereinafter referred 25 |] to as "Confidential Information". 26 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 27 || substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 28 |] officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that

1 || the risk of harm to peace officers 1s greater than with other government employees 2 || due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the 3 || benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the 4 || potential disadvantages are great. 5 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate 6 || pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See 7 || Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 8 SO STIPULATED Dated: January 11, 2021 Respectfully submitted, JONES & MAYER

IZ By: /s/ Denise L. Rocawich 13 JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE DENISE L. ROCAWICH 14 oe for Defendants ae of West Covina, Officer Carmon 15 and Officer Wiley 16 Dated: January 11, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

18 PLC LAW GROUP 19 By: /s/ Na’Shaun L. Neal 20 NASHAUN NEAL Attorneys for Plaintiff ah Kevin Lee Howard 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 PER THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND GOOD CAUSE 3 | APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms and conditions of this 4 || Protective Order shall govern the handling of Discovery Materials containing 5 || Confidential Information in matter of Howard v. West Covina et al. USCD Case 6 || No. CV19-08281 CBM (MRW) ("the Litigation"): 7 1. Applicability of Order: This Order does not and will not govern any 8 || trial proceedings in this Litigation, but will otherwise be applicable to and govern 9 | the handling of documents, depositions, deposition exhibits, interrogatory 10 || responses, responses to requests for admissions, responses to requests for 11 | production of documents, and all other discovery obtained pursuant to the Federal 12 || Rules of Civil Procedure by Plaintiff in connection with the Litigation (this 13 |] information hereinafter referred to as “Discovery Material’). 14 2. Designation of Material: Defendants may designate Discovery 15 || Material that is in their possession, custody or control to be produced to Plaintiff as 16 |] “Confidential Information” under the terms of this Order if Defendants in good 17 || faith reasonably believe that such Discovery Material contains non-public, 18 || confidential material as defined in section 4 below. 19 3. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for 20 || Protection: When designating Discovery Material for protection as Confidential 21 |] Information under this Order, Defendants must take care to limit any such 22 |] designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. 23 |] Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 24 4. Confidential Information: For purposes of this Order, Confidential 25 |] Information is any information and/or documents that Defendants believe in good 26 |] faith to be Peace Officer Personnel File Information and/or Documents including: 27 |] (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and 28 || employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history: zs

1 || (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or 2 || discipline: and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an 3 || event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer 4 || perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his 5 | or her duties including compelled statements. Confidential Information is also any 6 || West Covina Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the public 7 || and the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise security 8 || issues, and/or impede investigations. 9 5. Designating Confidential Information: The designation of 10 || Discovery Material as Confidential Information for purposes of this Order shall be 11 | made in the following manner: 12 a. Documents: In the case of documents or other materials (apart from 13 depositions or other pre-trial testimony), designation shall be made by 14 stamping “Confidential” to each page containing any Confidential 15 Information. Any such stamp shall not overwrite or otherwise 16 obscure the text or images of any page. b.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kevin Lee Howard v. City of West Covina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-lee-howard-v-city-of-west-covina-cacd-2021.