Leonides Enriquez v. City of Long Beach

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 9, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-06464·Unknown

Opinion

1 Cameron Sehat, Esq. (SBN 256535) 2 5100 Campus Dr., Ste 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 3 Telephone: (949) 825-5200 4 Facsimile: (949) 313-5001 Cameron@sehatlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Leonides Enriquez 6 DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 7 NICHOLAS J. MASERO, Deputy City Attorney 8 State Bar No. 302989 9 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, California 90802-4664 10 Telephone: (562) 570-2200 11 Facsimile: (562) 436-1579 Attorneys for Defendant 12 City of Long Beach, Lizardo and Mays 13

18 LEONIDES ENRIQUEZ, individually. Case No. 23-cv-6464-ODW-AJR 19 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 20 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER

21 CITY OF LONG BEACH, a governmental entity; and LIZARDO 22 Individually, MAYS, individually; DOE "3", individually, DOE "4", individually, 23 DOES 5-10, inclusive.

24 Defendants.

25 26 1. GENERAL 27 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 28 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 1 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 2 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 3 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 4 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 5 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 6 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 7 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 8 set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 9 them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 10 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 11 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 12 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This case is likely to involve several 13 categories of sensitive records including: police reports containing personal 14 identifying information for witnesses that cooperated with law enforcement in 15 prosecuting violent crime; police personnel records; and Internal Affairs Records. The 16 parties request this protective order to facilitate prompt discovery while preserving 17 the legitimate privacy, safety, and confidentiality concerns that attach to certain 18 records. 19 Unfettered access to Long Beach Police Department (“The Department”) 20 police reports is not granted to the public. Instead, access is restricted to those 21 investigating the incident, involved in the incident or their representatives, those who 22 are prosecuting and/or defending those involved, and those who maintain the records. 23 Controlled access is necessary to not only assure the integrity and security of said 24 files, but also to ensure the privacy rights of those involved, especially third-party 25 witnesses/victims and minors are protected from possible retribution or retaliation for 26 their cooperation in a criminal investigation. Permitting uncontrolled disclosure can 27 disrupt the Department’s day-to-day operations, including but not limited to adversely 28 impacting the Department’s ability to thoroughly investigate incidents. It can also 1 present a risk to individuals who cooperate with law enforcement in investigating 2 violent crime. 3 The City, Department, and Defendants herein contend that they have an interest 4 in protecting their privacy rights relating to information in City officers’ personnel 5 files as well as the privacy rights of third parties and other related information. 6 Further, the Department contends that information contained in personnel and 7 internal affairs files is gathered and maintained in confidence by the Department. The 8 information gathered in these case files generally includes the statements of third- 9 party witnesses collected in confidence. Witnesses are told that the confidentiality of 10 their statement will be protected and that they are for the confidential use of the 11 Department. The Department believes that uncontrolled release of this information 12 would cause needless intrusion into and violation of privacy rights and chill the 13 cooperation of witnesses. Though Plaintiff may be entitled, in certain limited 14 circumstances, to examine and receive information in police officers’ personnel files 15 and internal affairs files, to the extent that they are relevant to their claims in the 16 above-captioned action, the City of Long Beach (“City”) and the Long Beach Police 17 Department (the “Department”) contend that a protective order is necessary to prevent 18 random and/or broad distribution of such information. Furthermore, this proposed 19 protective order was created for the purpose of protecting certain information that 20 may be subject to the official information privilege, law enforcement privilege, and 21 the right to privacy, as protected by the California and United States Constitution, 22 balanced with Plaintiff’s right to discovery in this litigation. 23 It is the policy of the Department not to disclose information contained in its 24 employees personnel records, or other information contained in confidential police 25 personnel files, unless required by statute or ordered to do so by a court of competent 26 jurisdiction. Further, it is the policy of the Department not to disclose information 27 contained in police reports to those other than the parties involved in the incident, 28 their representatives, prosecutors, etc. unless ordered to do so by a court of competent 1 jurisdiction. 2 Within the Department, access to personnel files is restricted to those on a 3 “need to know” basis. Controlled access to the files is regarded by the Department as 4 essential in order to assure the integrity and security of such files. The Department 5 contends that uncontrolled disclosure of such information can disrupt the 6 Department’s vital, day-to-day operations, erode the integrity and security of the 7 confidential personnel and related files, affect the morale of Department’s personnel, 8 and frustrate the legitimate purposes of gathering the information in these files, 9 including adversely impacting disciplinary procedures within the Department. 10 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ 11 representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential 12 records, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 13 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 14 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 15 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in connection with 16 this action, to address their handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and 17 to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 18 matter. The parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential 19 without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in 20 a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason 21 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: [this pending federal lawsuit]. [*Option: consolidated or related 24 actions.] 25 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 26 of information or items under this Order. 27 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 28 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 2 Cause Statement.

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

Leonides Enriquez v. City of Long Beach, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Leonides Enriquez v. City of Long Beach (Leonides Enriquez v. City of Long Beach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.