Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 18, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01404·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

GERARDO PACHECO, et al. Case No.: 2:20-cv-01404-TLN-KJN

Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. FOR STANDARD LITIGATION

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.

Defendant. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. Defendants, who are peace officers employed by the Stockton Police Department, anticipate that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests will necessarily include portions of personnel records for the peace officers involved in the arrest of Plaintiff, training records for these officers, disciplinary records and other materials related to Defendants’ job performance, records of citizen complaints, and confidential training materials for use-of-force policies and arrest techniques. Defendants maintain that personnel records are treated as confidential under California State Law. See Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(a); Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040. A protective order is necessary for personnel records because these records contain private information concerning a peace officer’s personal data, including, in some cases, the officer’s family members, home addresses, medical history, employee benefits, and appraisal of the officer’s performance or discipline. Disclosure of that information is considered a violation of the officer’s privacy under state law. See Cal. Penal Code § 832.8. Records of complaints against officers are also considered records of personal information under California’s Information Practices Act. See Cal. Civil Code § 1798, et. seq. Defendants maintain that an order is necessary prohibiting the parties from using the above categories of information for any purpose other than that which is necessary to litigate this matter. Because litigation is conducted in public, these materials could be reviewed and obtained by any member of the general public, which, in turn, could jeopardize the safety of the officer or any member of the officer’s family. Accordingly, as peace officers who participated in the arrest of Plaintiff, this material should not be disclosed to the general public. Secondly, a protective order is necessary to protect training materials, use-of-force policies and arrest and apprehension policies. These materials are kept confidential for reasons related to peace officer safety so that fleeing felons and arrestees do not learn how officers are trained to use force and how officers conduct covert surveillance. Divulgement of these materials to the general public on the court’s docket would undermine legitimate law enforcement efforts to conduct safe use-of-force techniques to initiate arrests and apprehend fleeing felons. This material would also likely be protected under the official information privilege as articulated in Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987); however, the parties agree and stipulate that a narrowly drawn protective order, restricting disclosure of these materials to the attorneys for the parties, is the appropriate procedure for disclosing these categories of information. Under Kelly, such a protective order, rather than a private agreement, is necessary to adequately protect these interests, while allowing the parties the opportunity to engage in discovery of information proportional to the claims and defenses in this matter. For the foregoing reasons above, there is good cause for the entry of a protective order. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied from Protected Mat

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

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

Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton (Rodriguez Pacheco v. City of Stockton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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