Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 7, 2022
Docket5:22-cv-00034
StatusUnknown

This text of Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana (Oscar Corona 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
Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER OMOR & DUUR ,AYOL ,NOSLEDNA ,NOSNIKTA NOITAROPROC LANOISSEFORP A WAL TA SYENROTTA 003 ETIUS ,HTUOS EVIRD TRUOC RETNEC 00821 4639-30709 AINROFILAC ,SOTIRREC 0023-356 )265( :ENOHPELET 3333-356 )265( :XAF Case 5:22-cv-00034-JGB-SP Document 26 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:164 ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO A Professional Law Corporation Angela M. Powell State Bar No. 191876 Angela.Powell@aalrr.com Eric Gamboa State Bar No. 311924 Eric.Gamboa@aalrr.com 12800 Center Court Drive South, Suite 300 Cerritos, California 90703-9364 Telephone: (562) 653-3200 Fax: (562) 653-3333 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF FONTANA; CHIEF WILLIAM GREEN; OFFICER JACOB GREGG; and LIEUTENANT MATT KRAUT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE OSCAR CORONA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00034-JGB (SPx)

Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. Judge: Hon. Jesus G. Bernal CITY OF FONTANA; CHIEF Ctrm: 1 WILLIAM GREEN; OFFICER J. GREGG; LIEUTENANT KRAUT; and Complaint Filed: January 7, 2022 DOES 1-10, Trial Date: None

Defendant.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: By and through their counsel of record in this action, Plaintiff OSCAR CORONA (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant CITY OF FONTANA (“City”), and Defendants CHIEF WILLIAM GREEN, OFFICER JACOB GREGG and LIEUTENANT MATT KRAUT (collectively hereinafter “Defendants”) – the parties – hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the Honorable Court enter a Stipulated Protective Order re confidential documents in this matter as follows: / / / / / / 005759.00009 37174923.1 Case 4:22-cv-00034-JGB-SP Document 26 Filed 06/07/22 Page2of19 Page ID #:165

I} 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3| proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4] disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5|| be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6| enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 8|| responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and O 9} use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 6 10] treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 11] set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle = z □□ 12] them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the < 5555 13] procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party Seis’ 14] seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 5 85.538 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT ef gs * 16 1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. < 17 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 6 18] Protective Order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 19] officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for * 20] the following reasons. 21 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 22| privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 23] that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 24] procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 25} 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26] 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies 27| to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege 28] law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying sa STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 3 - STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER OMOR & DUUR ,AYOL ,NOSLEDNA ,NOSNIKTA NOITAROPROC LANOISSEFORP A WAL TA SYENROTTA 003 ETIUS ,HTUOS EVIRD TRUOC RETNEC 00821 4639-30709 AINROFILAC ,SOTIRREC 0023-356 )265( :ENOHPELET 3333-356 )265( :XAF Case 5:22-cv-00034-JGB-SP Document 26 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:166 [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open 005759.00009 37174923.1 Case 4:22-cv-00034-JGB-SP Document 26 Filed 06/07/22 Page4of19 Page ID #:167

1] and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that 2] can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial measures that may be required. 4 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same 5|| rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to 6| the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 7 compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 8|| 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. O 9 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a Protective Order preventing 6 10} such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely substantially 11} impair and harm Defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, = 12] frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, < 5.

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

Related

United States v. Zolin
491 U.S. 554 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
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)
Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-corona-v-city-of-fontana-cacd-2022.