Louie Soria v. County of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 4, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-01958
StatusUnknown

This text of Louie Soria v. County of San Bernardino (Louie Soria v. County of San Bernardino) 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
Louie Soria v. County of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 || Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) cugene. ramirez @manningkass.com 2 || Kayleigh Andersen (State Bar No. 306442) Kayleigh andersen@manningkass.com 3 || MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4||/801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 || Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO and SHERIFF 7 || SHANNON DICUS 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION

n 10 2 11 LOUIE SORIA, individually and as Case No. 5:22-CV-01958-JGB-KK successor-in-interest as father of — 12 || Decedent Isaac Soria, MARIA SORIA, [The Hon. Jesus G. Bernal; The Hon. © individually and as successor-in-interest | Kenly Kiya Kato] z 13 |} as mother of Decedent Isaac Soria S$ 14 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 5.2, 7, and 26; and any 28 || applicable Orders of the Court] — as follows:

1 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2|}1. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. 3}/1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. 4 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 5 || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 6 personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 7 || following reasons. 8 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 9 ||in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is ”n 10 || underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 2 11 || of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 12 || (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 13 |} 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based S 14 |)discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 15 ||consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 16 || privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 17 ||n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 18 |] [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 19||§§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 20 || uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 21 ||non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 22 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 23 ||have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 24 || privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 25 || (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 26 || officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 27 || critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 28 || communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis —

1 || potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 2 || Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 3 || or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 4 || obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 5 ||Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 6 || 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 7 || 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 8 || Hamstreet vy. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 9 ||v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants ”n 10 || further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the 2 11 || public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that = 12 |)uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 13 ||impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements S and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of 15|;open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged 16 || misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement 17 remedial measures that may be required. 18 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights 19 |)as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the 20 ||fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 21 ||compelled statements. See generally Lybarger y. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 22 || 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 23 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 24 || such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 25 ||impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 26 || frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving 27 ||the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ 28 ||families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and

1 ||preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by 2 || publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information — as can and often does 3 || result in litigation. 4 Plaintiffs agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 5 || the respective interests of the parties without the need to further burden the Court with 6 ||such issues. Specifically, the parties jointly contend that, absent this Stipulation and 7 \|1ts associated Protective Order, the parties’ respective privilege interests may be 8 || impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its associated Protective Order may 9 || avoid such harm by permitting the parties to facilitate discovery with reduced risk that ”n 10 || privileged and/or sensitive/confidential information will become matters of public 2 11 || record. = 12 1.2. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need 13 |)for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy S 14 || photographs, because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of these 15 |] sensitive interests, a Court Order should address these documents rather than a private 16 || agreement between the parties. 17 1.3.

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)
Louie Soria v. County of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louie-soria-v-county-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2023.