Ryan James Gue v. City of Hemet

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 3, 2024·No. 5:23-cv-00320·Unknown

Opinion

1 Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) cugene-ramirez(@manningkass-com Andrea K. Kornblau (State Bar No. 291613) andrea.kornblau@manningkass.com Marisa Zarate (State Bar No. 140286) marisa.zarateQmanningkass.com NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT MANNING & Kass ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 Telephone: Gb) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF HEMET 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ¥~¥ 1 S 13 || RYAN JAMES GUE, Case No. 5:23-cv-00320-JAK-JPR > [Hon. John A. Kronstadt, District = 14 Plaintiff, Judge; Hon. Jean P. Rosenbluth] < = 15 V. [DISCOVERY MATTER] CITY OF HEMET; JOHN DOE #1, individually and as Police Officer for STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF the Hemet Police Department; and PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DOES 2-10, inclusive, CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Defendants. [Proposed Order filed concurrently erewith] oo Complaint Filed: 02/27/2023 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: By and through their counsel of record in this action, plaintiff RYAN JAMES GUE (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’), and defendant CITY OF HEMET (hereinafter referred to as ““Defendant’’) — the parties — hereby stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order re confidential documents in this matter [and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., Local Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and any applicable Orders of

1 the Court] — as follows: 2 1. INTRODUCTION. 4 1.1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. 5 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 6 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 7 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 8 the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 9 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 11 || affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items x 12 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge that this Order does not entitle them to file Confidential S$ 14 || Information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 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. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Defendant contends that there is good cause and a particularized need for a protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the following reasons. First, Defendant contends that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure of California law. See Sanchez vy. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which 1s

1 /consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [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 11§§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendant further contends that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 8 Second, Defendant contends 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 11 || (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace x 12 || officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or S$ 14 || 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). Defendant further contends 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

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

Ryan James Gue v. City of Hemet, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Ryan James Gue v. City of Hemet (Ryan James Gue v. City of Hemet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles
710 P.2d 329 (California Supreme Court, 1985)
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)