Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 18, 2026·No. 2:23-cv-02100·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 | LORENA CHERPAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02100-TLN-CSK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED 10 y STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 47) 13 | CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 17 | 47), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See 18 | L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following 19 | clarification. 20 The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain 21 | jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” 22 | L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, 23 | at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain 24 | jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the 25 | Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. 26 || Dated: May 18, 2026 C i s 27 CHI S00 KIM 28 || 7, cher2100.23sstip UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 K. CHIKE ODIWE, ESQ. (SBN 315109) LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH C. ODIWE, PC 2 2880 Zanker Road Suite 203 San Jose, CA 95134 3 Telephone: (669) 315-4431 4 Facsimile: (669) 315-4431 kenneth@kennethodiwelaw.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 LORENA CHERPAN 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

Case No. 2:23-cv-02100-TLN-CSK 11 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 12 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER

13 CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal 14 corporation; ADAM BRUNIE, in his individual capacity as a law enforcement 15 officer for the CITY OF FAIRFIELD; SELENA DIAZ, in her individual capacity as 16 a law enforcement officer for the CITY OF FAIRFIELD; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 21 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action is expected to involve the categories of 23 sensitive information identified in Section 1.3 below, for which specific protection from public 24 disclosure and use outside this litigation is warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to 25 and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. This Order does not 26 confer blanket protection on all discovery material. Only information that falls within the specific 27 categories identified in Section 1.3 and is designated in good faith on a document by document 28 basis shall be entitled to protection. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 1 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 2 under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 3 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 4 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve information protected by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights 6 (POBRA) and Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights Act as set forth in California Government 7 Code section 3300 et. seq. and Penal Code section 832.7 and 832.8 for which special protection 8 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 9 warranted. 10 Defendants may be producing documents that contain personal and confidential 11 information regarding individuals which information is generally unavailable to the public, 12 including peace officer personnel records. The disclosure of this information to the public may 13 violate those individuals’ privacy rights. Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal 14 privilege of privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 15 that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure of 16 California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034, (9th Cir. 17 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) 18 (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based discovery disputes involving 19 federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is consistent with its federal equivalent 20 significantly assists in applying [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Cal. Penal Code 21 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. The uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel 22 file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their 23 families/associates. 24 Defendants further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure 25 by the public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law that uncontrolled 26 release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of 27 third-party witness information and statements and related legitimate law enforcement 28 investigations/interests. 1 Defendants also contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights as other 2 private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the fundamental principles 3 of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ compelled statements. See generally 4 Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 828-830 (1985); fc. U.S. Const., amend V. 5 Defendants contend that law enforcement agencies have federal deliberative-executive 6 process privilege, federal official information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and 7 federal attorney-client privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the 8 personnel files of their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel 9 files that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or 10 evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or 11 analysis – potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs 12 type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or 13 reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal 14 advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest 15 Serv., 108 F.3d 1 089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668- 16 671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th 17 Cir. 1988). Additionally, Defendants may be producing reports obtained from the California Law 18 Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), which reports are generally unavailable to 19 the public and the disclosure of which is subject to state and federal laws and regulations 20 restricting and/or limiting disclosure or dissemination. The disclosure of this information to the 21 public may jeopardize the security of CLETS, the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts that 22 rely on CLETS, and the safety of law enforcement officers using CLETS. Defendants may also be 23 producing documents concerning confidential internal policies, which documents are generally 24 unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the security of the 25 State’s operations and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. Finally, Defendants may be 26 producing investigation reports which are generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of 27 which could violate individuals’ privacy rights and jeopardize the safety of officers. 28 The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for protection as to 1 any medical or psychotherapeutic records, because of the privacy interests at stake.

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

Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al. (Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Providence School Department v. Ana C., a Minor
108 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1997)
Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles
710 P.2d 329 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)