Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 7, 2022·No. 5:22-cv-00072·Unknown

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 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

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

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MOSES RUBINO, an individual; Case No.: 5:22-cv-00072-JWH (SPx) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Sheri Pym Plaintiff, vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER CITY OF FONTANA; a public entity;

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

Defendants.

- 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

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

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

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

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

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

perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the pea ce officer performed his or her duties including compelled statements by peace officers. Defendants contend that such information is privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require the production of certain Fontana Police Department Policies and Procedures not available to the public and the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that 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). 8 Dated: March 31, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 9

By: /s/ Denise L. Rocawich Attorneys for Defendants City of Fontana, Officer Sandoval, and Officer Medina

DATED: March 31, 2022 KIRAKOSIAN LAW, APC

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

- 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

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 responses, responses to requests for admissions, responses to requests for production of documents, and all other discovery obtained pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Plaintiff in connection with the Litigation (this information hereinafter referred to as “Discovery Material”). 2. Designation of Material: Defendants may designate Discovery Material that is in their possession, custody or control to be produced to Plaintiff as “Confidential Information” under the terms of this Order if Defendants in good faith reasonably believe that such Discovery Material contains non-public, confidential material as defined in section 4 below. 3. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection: When designating Discovery Material for protection as Confidential Information under this Order, Defendants must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 4. Confidential Information: For purposes of this Order, Confidential Information is any information and/or documents that Defendants believe in good faith to be Peace Officer Personnel File Information and/or Documents including: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and 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

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

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

Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana (Moses Rubino v. City of Fontana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related