Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedNovember 18, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-01404
StatusUnknown

This text of Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton (Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton) 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
Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ., SBN 69888 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 2 Airport Corporate Center 3 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 4 Telephone: (510) 839-5200 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 5 Email: John.Burris@johnburrislaw.com

6 PATRICK BUELNA, ESQ., SBN 317043 7 POINTER & BUELNA, LLP LAWYERS FOR THE PEOPLE 8 Well Fargo Center 1901 Harrison St., Suite 1140, 9 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: 510-929-5400 10 Email: PBuelna@LawyersFTP.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 JOHN M. LUEBBERKE, City Attorney 13 State Bar No. 164893 SOPHIA M. RETCHLESS, Deputy City Attorney 14 State Bar No. 290200 425 N. El Dorado Street, 2nd Floor 15 Stockton, CA 95202 Telephone: (209) 937-8333 16 Facsimile: (209) 937-8898 Email: Sophia.retchless@stocktonca.gov 17 Attorneys for Defendants 18 CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal entity and C. KNIGHT, in his individual capacity 19 as a police officer for the Stockton Police Department

20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21 IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 GERARDO PACHECO, et al. Case No.: 2:20-cv-01404-TLN-KJN

2 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 3 v. FOR STANDARD LITIGATION

4 CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.

5 Defendant. 6 7 8 9 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, 10 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 11 12 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 13 stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 14 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 15 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 16 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 17 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 18 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the 19 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 20 from the court to file material under seal. 21 22 Defendants, who are peace officers employed by the Stockton Police Department, anticipate 23 that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests will necessarily include portions of personnel records for the 24 peace officers involved in the arrest of Plaintiff, training records for these officers, disciplinary 25 records and other materials related to Defendants’ job performance, records of citizen complaints, 26 and confidential training materials for use-of-force policies and arrest techniques. Defendants 27 maintain that personnel records are treated as confidential under California State Law. See Cal. 28 1 Penal Code § 832.7(a); Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040. A protective order is necessary for personnel 2 records because these records contain private information concerning a peace officer’s personal 3 data, including, in some cases, the officer’s family members, home addresses, medical history, 4 employee benefits, and appraisal of the officer’s performance or discipline. Disclosure of that 5 information is considered a violation of the officer’s privacy under state law. See Cal. Penal Code § 6 7 832.8. Records of complaints against officers are also considered records of personal information 8 under California’s Information Practices Act. See Cal. Civil Code § 1798, et. seq. Defendants 9 maintain that an order is necessary prohibiting the parties from using the above categories of 10 information for any purpose other than that which is necessary to litigate this matter. Because 11 litigation is conducted in public, these materials could be reviewed and obtained by any member of 12 the general public, which, in turn, could jeopardize the safety of the officer or any member of the 13 officer’s family. Accordingly, as peace officers who participated in the arrest of Plaintiff, this 14 15 material should not be disclosed to the general public. 16 Secondly, a protective order is necessary to protect training materials, use-of-force policies 17 and arrest and apprehension policies. These materials are kept confidential for reasons related to 18 peace officer safety so that fleeing felons and arrestees do not learn how officers are trained to use 19 force and how officers conduct covert surveillance. Divulgement of these materials to the general 20 public on the court’s docket would undermine legitimate law enforcement efforts to conduct safe 21 use-of-force techniques to initiate arrests and apprehend fleeing felons. This material would also 22 23 likely be protected under the official information privilege as articulated in Kelly v. City of San 24 Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987); however, the parties agree and stipulate that a narrowly 25 drawn protective order, restricting disclosure of these materials to the attorneys for the parties, is 26 the appropriate procedure for disclosing these categories of information. Under Kelly, such a 27 protective order, rather than a private agreement, is necessary to adequately protect these interests, 28 1 while allowing the parties the opportunity to engage in discovery of information proportional to the 2 claims and defenses in this matter. For the foregoing reasons above, there is good cause for the 3 entry of a protective order. 4 5 2. DEFINITIONS 6 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or 7 items under this Order. 8 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, 9 stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 26(c). 11 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 12 support staff). 13 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces 14 in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or 16 manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 17 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery 18 in this matter. 19 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 20 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant 21 in this action. 22 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does 23 not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 24 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not 25 named as a Party to this action. 26 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are 27 retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that 28 party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 1 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 2 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 3 4 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in 5 this action. 6 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., 7 photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or 8 retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors.

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

Related

Kelly v. City of San Jose
114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. California, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-pacheco-v-city-of-stockton-caed-2020.