Laureen Frausto v. City of West Covina

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 16, 2023·No. 2:20-cv-05075·Unknown

Opinion

NOTE: CHA NGES MADE BY THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LAUREEN FRAUSTO, an individual, Case No.: 2:20-cv-05075-JAK-JPR

Plaintiff, vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER CITY OF WEST COVINA, a municipal entity; CODY ISIDE, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the West Covina Police Department; MICHAEL TUANO, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the West Covina Police Department; STEPHEN MCLEAN, individually and in his official capacity as corporal for the West Covina Police Department; ERIC STREET, individually and in his official capacity as sergeant for the West Covina Police Department; IAN PAPARRO, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the West Covina Police Department; CHRISTOPHER QUEZADA, individually and his official capacity as a police officer for the West Covina Police Department; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually and in their official capacity as police officers for the West Covina Police Department, TO THE HONORABLE COURT: By and through their counsel of record in this action, Plaintiff LAUREEN FRAUSTO ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants CITY OF WEST COVINA, CODY ISIDE, MICHAEL TUANO, STEPHEN MCLEAN, ERIC STREET, IAN PAPARRO, and CHRISTOPHER QUEZADA ("Defendants") – the parties – hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order regarding the confidential documents in in this matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26; U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., Local Rules 7-1; and any applicable Orders of the Court] as follows: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action may 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 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file Confidential Information under seal; Civil Local 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. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Defendants CITY OF ERIC STREET, IAN PAPARRO, and CHRISTOPHER QUEZADA and Plaintiff LAUREEN FRAUSTO (collectively "the Parties"), by their undersigned counsel, agree to be bound to the terms of the following Protective Order. 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 Defendants contend 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 except such information as is deemed “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 West Covina Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the public and the public disclosure of which Defendants contend 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. Defendants contend that that the risk 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. This litigation is in the early stages of discovery. Plaintiff contends that some of the documents and information that will be produced during the discovery process contain confidential information. As such, Plaintiff contends the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern privileges, and this protective order does not confer blanket protections of privilege. Specifically, 'if a party withholds information that is responsive to a discovery request by claiming that it is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, that party shall promptly prepare and provide a privilege log that is sufficiently detailed and informative for the opposing party to assess whether a document’s designation as privileged is justified. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(5). The privilege log shall set forth the privilege relied upon and specify separately for each document or for each category of similarly situated documents: (a) the title and description of the document, including number of pages or Bates- number range; (b) the subject matter addressed in the document; (c) the identity and position of its author(s); (d) the identity and position of all addressees and recipients; (e) the date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s); and (f) the specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged and protected. Communications involving counsel that post-date the filing of the complaint need not be placed on a privilege log.'” 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). 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Laureen Frausto v. City of West Covina, et al., Case No.: 2:20- cv-05075-JAK-JPR, pending before the United States District Court, Central District of California. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty 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(

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

Laureen Frausto v. City of West Covina, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Laureen Frausto v. City of West Covina (Laureen Frausto v. City of West Covina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related