Ngo v. Romero

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedAugust 12, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-00472
StatusUnknown

This text of Ngo v. Romero (Ngo v. Romero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ngo v. Romero, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 || Mildred K. O’Linn (State Bar No. 159055) missy.olinn @ manningkass: com 2 || Lynn Carpenter (State Bar No. 310011) lynn.carpenter @ manningkass, com 3 Maya Sorensen (State Bar No. 250722) aa Sorensen @manningkass. com 4||MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 51/801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 6 || Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 7 8 || Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO. OFFICER MANUEL 9 || ROMERO, and OFFICER GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ 10 2 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT x 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA © z= 13 S$ 14 || CHI THANH NGO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00472-KES-BAM < District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff = 15 Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe 16 V. 17 || FRESNO POLICE OFFICER STIPULATION AND JOINT MANUEL ROMERO FRESNO REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF 18 || POLICE OFFICER REY MEDELES; PROTECTIVE ORDER RE FRESNO POLICE OFFICER CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS; 19 || GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ; THE CITY | ORDER OF FRESNO; UNKNOWN LAW 20 || ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Trial Date: n/a 21 Defendants. 22 23 || TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 24 By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiff CHI THANH 25 || NGO (“Plaintiff”) and defendants CITY OF FRESNO, OFFICER MANUEL 26 || ROMERO, OFFICER REY MEDELES, and OFFICER GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ 27 || (““Defendants”’) — the parties — hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting 28 || that the Honorable Court enter a protective order regarding confidential documents 4890-2163-3365.1

] ||in this matter and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 5.2, 7, and 26, 2 ||as well as U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California Local Rules 141, 141.1, 3 || 143, 230 and/or 251; and any applicable Orders of the Court — as follows: 4}/1. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. 5 1.1. Defendants’ Contentions. 6 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 7 || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 8 || officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for 9 || the following reasons. 10 First, defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 2 11 || privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein x 12 || that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 13 || procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, S$ 14 || 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15 || 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies 16 || to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege 17 || law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying 18 || [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes’’); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 19 || 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based 20 || “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. 21 || Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further 22 || contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten 23 || the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 24 Second, defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 25 have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 26 || privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 27 || and/or attorney work product protection interests in the personnel files of their peace 28 || officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that

] || contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or 2 || evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering 3 || legal advice or analysis — potentially including but not limited to evaluative/ 4 || analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical 5 || portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of 6 || counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 7\| F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 8 || 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n. 4 9 (1995); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite ”n v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. 2 11 || Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 x 12 || F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further contend that such 13 || personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public entity’s custodian S$ 14 || of records pursuant to applicable California law and that uncontrolled release is 15 || likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection 16 || of third-party witness information and statements and related legitimate law 17 || enforcement investigations/ interests; and a chilling of open and honest discussion 18 || regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial measures that may be 20 || required. 21 Third, defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same 22 || rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to 23 || the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 24 || compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 25 || 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., Amend V. 26 Accordingly, defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 27 ||such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 28 || impair defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, frank

] || internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, preserving the 2 ||safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace officers’ 3 || families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, and 4 || preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by 5 || publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information — as can and often does 6 || result in litigation. 7 1.2. Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order 8 || consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation so as to preserve the 9 || respective interests of the parties. 10 1.3. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need 2 11 || for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy 12 photographs, because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of these 13 || sensitive interests, a court order should address these documents rather than a 14 || private agreement between the parties. 15 1.4. The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby 16 || jointly request that the Honorable Court issue/enter, a Protective Order regarding 17 || confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. 18 || However, the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation 19 || shall not be construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal 20 || statements or privilege claims in this section (§ 1), nor shall this section be 21 || construed as part of any such Court Order. 22 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Sargent v. Tenaska, Inc.
108 F.3d 5 (First Circuit, 1997)
Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles
710 P.2d 329 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
Fox's Adm'rs v. Commonwealth
16 Va. 1 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1860)
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)
Ngo v. Romero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ngo-v-romero-caed-2024.