Meritzel Escamilla v. City of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 17, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00669
StatusUnknown

This text of Meritzel Escamilla v. City of San Bernardino (Meritzel Escamilla v. City 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
Meritzel Escamilla v. City of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 MERITZEL ESCAMILLA, an Case No. 5:25-cv-00669-MWF (SPx) 12 individual, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 Plaintiff, ORDER

14 vs.

15 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a public entity, OFFICER RICHARD 16 AUSTIN, an individual, SERGEANT IMRAN AHMED, an individual, 17 OFFICER RAYMOND LEDEZMA, an individual, and DOES 1-10 18 Defendants. 19

20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 23 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 24 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 25 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 26 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 27 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 28 1 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 2 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 3 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 4 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 5 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 6 the court to file material under seal. 7 8 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 This action involves the City of San Bernardino (“City”) and individual sworn 10 police officers of the San Bernardino Police Department (“SBPD”) on one side; and 11 on the other, Plaintiff Meritzel Escamilla, who claims damages from the City and 12 SBPD officers. 13 As such, Plaintiff may seek materials and information that the City maintains 14 as confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved in the incident, 15 video recordings (including Body-Worn Video recordings and Digital In-Car Video 16 recordings), audio recordings, and other administrative materials and information 17 currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes needs special 18 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 19 this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information contained in the personnel 20 files of the Police Officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains 21 as strictly confidential and which the City believes needs special protection from 22 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 23 The City asserts that the confidentiality of materials and information sought by 24 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law as evidenced by, inter alia, 25 California Penal Code section 832.7, California Evidence Code section 1043 et. seq. 26 and Kerr v. United States District Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), 27 aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 192, 198 (9th. Cir. 28 1990); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Call 1992). The City does not 1 publicly release the materials and information referenced above except under 2 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 3 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against SBPD officers 4 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where officers’ conduct 5 was considered to be contrary to SBPD policy. 6 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 7 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 8 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 9 paralegals, and expert witnesses involved in the case, as well as the corollary risk of 10 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the SBPD 11 officers referenced in the materials and information. 12 Defendants seek discovery of various information relating to Plaintiff’s 13 damages claims, including employment information, housing information, financial 14 information, and confidential medical records that may be personal, private, and 15 potentially embarrassing if unnecessarily disseminated; thus, Plaintiff contends such 16 information not be disseminated beyond this litigation. 17 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 18 resolution of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 19 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 20 parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for 21 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of litigation, and serve 22 the ends of justice, a protective order is necessary. Such information will not be 23 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and nothing will be designated without 24 a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 25 and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, case no. 5:25-cv-00669-MWF 3 (SPx). 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 5 of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 7 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 8 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 9 Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 11 support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 16 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 17 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 18 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 19 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 20 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 21 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 22 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 23 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 24 counsel. 25 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 26 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 27 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 28 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 1 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 2 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 3 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 4 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 5 support staffs). 6 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 7 Discovery Material in this Action.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Meritzel Escamilla v. City of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meritzel-escamilla-v-city-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2025.