Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 7, 2022
Docket5:22-cv-00072
StatusUnknown

This text of Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana (Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana) 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
Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-00072-JWH-SP Document 17 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:115

1 James R. Touchstone, SBN 184584 jrt@jones-mayer.com 2 Denise L. Rocawich, SBN 232792 dlr@jones-mayer.com 3 JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 5 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

6 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF FONTANA, OFFICER SANDOVAL, and OFFICER MEDINA 7 Greg L. Kirakosian, SBN 294580 8 greg@kirakosianlaw.com KIRAKOSIAN LAW, APC 9 Historic Engine Co. No. 28

10 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017-3411 11 Telephone: (213) 417-9790 Facsimile: (213) 477-2355 12 13 A ttorneys for Plaintiff, MOSES RUBINO

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 MOSES RUBINO, an individual; Case No.: 5:22-cv-00072-JWH (SPx) 18 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Sheri Pym Plaintiff, 19 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 CITY OF FONTANA; a public entity;

21 OFFICER SANDOVAL, an individual; OFFICER MEDINA, an individual; and 22 DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

23 Defendants. 24

25 26 27 28 - i - [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-00072-JWH-SP Document 17 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:116

1 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Defendants CITY OF

3 FONTANA, OFFICER SANDOVAL and OFFICER RENDER and Plaintiff

4 MOSES RUBINO (collectively "the Parties"), by their undersigned counsel, agree

5 to be bound to the terms of the following Protective Order. The Parties represent

6 that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include the production of information

7 and/or documents that are confidential and/or privileged including the production of

8 peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Parties agree

9 includes: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational

10 and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical

11 history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or

12 discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event

13 or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer

14 perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the pea ce officer performed his or 15 her duties including compelled statements by peace officers. Defendants contend 16 that such information is privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa 17 Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. 18 Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 19 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require the production of 20 certain Fontana Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the 21 public and the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise 22 security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file 23 information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are 24 hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". 25 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 26 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 27 officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that 28 the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees - 1 - [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-00072-JWH-SP Document 17 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:117

1 due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the 2 benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the 3 potential disadvantages are great. 4 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate 5 pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See Fed. 6 R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 7 SO STIPULATED 8 Dated: March 31, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 9

10 JONES MAYER

11 By: /s/ Denise L. Rocawich 12 JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE 13 DENISE L. ROCAWICH Attorneys for Defendants City of 14 Fontana, Officer Sandoval, and Officer 15 Medina

16 DATED: March 31, 2022 KIRAKOSIAN LAW, APC 17

18 By: /s/Greg L. Kirakosian 19 GREG L. KIRAKOSIAN . Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 Moses Rubino

28 - 2 - [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-00072-JWH-SP Document 17 Filed 04/07/22 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:118

1 PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 PER THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND GOOD CAUSE 3 APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms and conditions of this 4 Protective Order shall govern the handling of Discovery Materials containing 5 Confidential Information in matter of Rubino v. City of Fontana et al. USCD Case 6 No. ED CV 22-00072 JWH (SP) ("the Litigation"): 7 1. Applicability of Order: This Order does not and will not govern any 8 trial proceedings in this Litigation, but will otherwise be applicable to and govern 9 the handling of documents, depositions, deposition exhibits, interrogatory 10 responses, responses to requests for admissions, responses to requests for 11 production of documents, and all other discovery obtained pursuant to the Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure by Plaintiff in connection with the Litigation (this 13 information hereinafter referred to as “Discovery Material”). 14 2. Designation of Material: Defendants may designate Discovery 15 Material that is in their possession, custody or control to be produced to Plaintiff as 16 “Confidential Information” under the terms of this Order if Defendants in good 17 faith reasonably believe that such Discovery Material contains non-public, 18 confidential material as defined in section 4 below. 19 3. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for 20 Protection: When designating Discovery Material for protection as Confidential 21 Information under this Order, Defendants must take care to limit any such 22 designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. Mass, 23 indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 24 4. Confidential Information: For purposes of this Order, Confidential 25 Information is any information and/or documents that Defendants believe in good 26 faith to be Peace Officer Personnel File Information and/or Documents including: 27 (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and 28 employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; - 3 - [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-00072-JWH-SP Document 17 Filed 04/07/22 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:119

1 (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or 2 discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event 3 or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer 4 perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or 5 her duties including compelled statements. Confidential Information is also any 6 Fontana Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the public and 7 the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise security issues, 8 and/or impede investigations. 9 5.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-rubino-v-city-of-fontana-cacd-2022.