Leeyonnie Hernandez v. County of Riverside

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 22, 2023
Docket5:21-cv-01791
StatusUnknown

This text of Leeyonnie Hernandez v. County of Riverside (Leeyonnie Hernandez v. County of Riverside) 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
Leeyonnie Hernandez v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 5:21-cv-01791-JGB-SP Document 51 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:458

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION 10 11 LEEYONNIE HERNANDEZ, an Case No. 5:21-cv-01791-JGB (SPx) individual, for herself and, as guardian (Consolidating 5:21-cv-01795-JGB 12 ad litem for minors PZ, KH, and AH, (SPx)

13 Plaintiffs, PROTECTIVE ORDER RE 14 vs. CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

15 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al.

16 Defendants.

17 ROBIN ZUMWALT, individually and as the personal representative of 18 CHRISTOPHER ZUMWALT, Trial Date: None Set deceased; and ANTHONY 19 ZUMWALT, individually,,

20 Plaintiffs,

21 vs.

22 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al.,

23 Defendants.

24 25 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES (“Stipulation for 26 Entry of Protective Order re Confidential Documents”), and pursuant to the Court’s 27 inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to the Court’s authority LEWIS 28 under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States District BRISBOIS B &I SS MGA ITA HR LLD P

70290213.2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:21-cv-01791-JGB-SP Document 51 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:459

1 Court, Central District of California Local Rules; after due consideration of all of the 2 relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon such other evidence 3 or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in 4 furtherance of the interests of justice, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 7 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 8 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 9 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be 10 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 11 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 12 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 13 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 14 information or items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable 15 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 16 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 17 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 18 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 19 the court to file material under seal. 20 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 21 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 22 protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 23 personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 24 following reasons. 25 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 26 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 27 underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure LEWIS 28 of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 BRISBOIS B &I SS MGA ITA HR LLD P

70290213.2 2 ATTORNEYS AT LAW [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:21-cv-01791-JGB-SP Document 51 Filed 02/22/23 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:460

1 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 2 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 3 discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 4 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 5 privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 6 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 7 [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 8 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 9 uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 10 non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 11 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 12 have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 13 privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 14 (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 15 officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 16 critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 17 communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – 18 potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 19 Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 20 or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 21 obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 22 Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 23 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 24 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 25 Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 26 v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants 27 further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the LEWIS 28 public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that BRISBOIS B &I SS MGA ITA HR LLD P

70290213.2 3 ATTORNEYS AT LAW [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:21-cv-01791-JGB-SP Document 51 Filed 02/22/23 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:461

1 uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 2 impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements 3 and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of 4 open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 5 misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement 6 any remedial measures that may be required. 7 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 8 as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 9 fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 10 compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 11 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 12 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 13 such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 14 impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 15 frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 16 the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ 17 families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and 18 preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by 19 publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information – as can and often does 20 result in litigation.

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)
Leeyonnie Hernandez v. County of Riverside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leeyonnie-hernandez-v-county-of-riverside-cacd-2023.