Nicholas Green v. Board of Regents of the University of California

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 25, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-04077
StatusUnknown

This text of Nicholas Green v. Board of Regents of the University of California (Nicholas Green v. Board of Regents of the University of California) 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
Nicholas Green v. Board of Regents of the University of California, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 21/21-cv-04077-RGK-AFM Document 49 Filed 04/25/22 Pagelof17 Page ID #:395 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 10 m 11 || Nicholas Green, Case No. 2:21-CV-04077-RGK-AFM 12 Plaintiff, [PROF PSED | ORDER RE 28 TIPULATED PROTECTIVE a 13 V. ORDER! 22: 14]|| Board of Regents of the University of z Ze California, Sergeant Paak (#320), Ze) Officer McIntire (#357), Officer Dodd =o (#389), Officer Brox ( 388), Officer 2! 16|| Jeffrey Chobanian, Officer K. 3 Gutierrez, Bill Clayton, William Dunne, FA! 17||and DOES | through 10 inclusive 18 Defendant. 19 20 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES (‘Stipulation for 21 || Entry of Protective Order re Confidential Documents”), and pursuant to the Court’s 22 ||inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to the Court’s authority 23 || under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States District 24 || Court, Central District of California Local Rules; after due consideration of all of the 25 || relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon such other evidence 26 27 || 28 ' This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon’s Procedures. Case No. 2:21-CV-04077-RGK-AFM [PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 49 Filed 04/25/22 Page2of17 Page ID #:396

1 || or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in 2 || furtherance of the interests of justice, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4\)1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMPTATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve 5 || production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special 6 || protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 7 ||this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 8 || petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 9 || acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 10 || responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and es 11 || use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential

» 12 || treatment under the applicable legal principles. FI 13|}/B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Z 14 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a a 15 protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 16 || officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for 3 FA! 17||the following reasons. 18 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 19 || privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 20 || that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 21 || procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 22 || 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23 || 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies 24 || to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege 25 || law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying 26 || [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 27 28 2 Case No. 2:21-CV-04077-RGK-AFM [PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 21/21-cv-04077-RGK-AFM Document 49 Filed 04/25/22 Page3of17 Page ID#:397

1 || 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based 2 || “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf: 3 || Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants 4 || further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can 5 || threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 6 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement 7 || agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official 8 || information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client 9 || privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of 10 || their peace officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files 6 11 || that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or

12 || evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering FI 13 || legal advice or analysis — potentially including but not limited to Z 14 || evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, a 1 15 evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports 16 || prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering 3 FI 17|| legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. 18 || United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Soto, 162 19 || F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. 20 || Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. 21 || Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United 22 || States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further 23 || contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public 24 || entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 25 || uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; 26 || impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and 27 || related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open 28 || and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that 3 Case No. 2:21-CV-04077-RGK-AFM [PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 49 Filed 04/25/22 Page 4of17 Page ID #:398

1 || can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial 2 ||measures that may be required. 3 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same 4 || rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to 5 || the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 6 || compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 7 || 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 8 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 9 ||such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 10 || impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 6 11 || frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, 12 || preserving the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace SF 13 || officers’ families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, Z 14 || and preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by a 1 15 publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information — as can and often does 16 || result in litigation. 5 17 1.2.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Tuite v. Henry
181 F.R.D. 175 (District of Columbia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nicholas Green v. Board of Regents of the University of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-green-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-of-california-cacd-2022.