RYAN P. WALTERS, an Individual v. State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol, Beau Biter, Enrique Ayala, John Betz, and Brandon Urrutia

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 14, 2026
Docket8:24-cv-00196
StatusUnknown

This text of RYAN P. WALTERS, an Individual v. State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol, Beau Biter, Enrique Ayala, John Betz, and Brandon Urrutia (RYAN P. WALTERS, an Individual v. State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol, Beau Biter, Enrique Ayala, John Betz, and Brandon Urrutia) 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
RYAN P. WALTERS, an Individual v. State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol, Beau Biter, Enrique Ayala, John Betz, and Brandon Urrutia, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 ROB BONTA 2 Attorney General of California ELIZABETH S. ANGRES 3 Supervising Deputy Attorney General HAIYANG A. LI 4 Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 288063 5 300 So. Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 6 Telephone: (213) 269-6404 Facsimile: (916) 731-2120 7 E-mail: Haiyang.Li@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 8 State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol, Beau Biter, Enrique Ayala, John 9 Betz, and Brandon Urrutia

10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

13 14 15 RYAN P. WALTERS, an Individual, Case No. 8:24-cv-00196 MWF-DFM 16 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 v. DISCOVERY MATTER 18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 19 PATROL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21

22 23 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 24 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Discovery in this action involves production of confidential, proprietary, or 26 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 27 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 28 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 1 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 2 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 3 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 4 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 5 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 6 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 7 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets for the procedures that must be 8 following and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 9 from the court to file material under seal. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action involves confidential, proprietary or private information for 12 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 13 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential, proprietary and 14 private materials and information consist of, among other things confidential and 15 private information related to peace officers and department policies including 16 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 17 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 18 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 19 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 20 protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 21 officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records 22 for the following reasons. 23 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 24 privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 25 that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 26 procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 27 1027, 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. 28 LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law 1 applies to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state 2 privilege law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in 3 applying [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 4 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have 5 constitutionally-based “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police 6 personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code, §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code, §§ 1040- 7 1047. Defendants further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel 8 file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their 9 families/associates. 10 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement 11 agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official 12 information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client 13 privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files 14 of their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel 15 files that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or 16 evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering 17 legal advice or analysis – potentially including but not limited to 18 evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, 19 evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports 20 prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering 21 legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. 22 United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Soto, 162 23 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-671 (N.D. 24 Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. 25 Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United 26 States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further 27 contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public 28 entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 1 uncontrolled release will result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment 2 in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and related 3 legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open and 4 honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that can 5 erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial measures 6 that may be required. 7 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same 8 rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary 9 to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ 10 compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 11 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 12 Fourth, Defendants contend that documents requested in discovery will 13 contain personal information of unrelated third parties. Public disclosure of such 14 information will implicate the privacy rights of third parties unrelated to this action. 15 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order preventing 16 such, production of confidential records in the case can and will substantially 17 impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self-critical analysis, 18 frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from witnesses, 19 preserving the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers and peace 20 officers’ families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace officers, 21 and preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally undermined by 22 publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information – as can and often does 23 result in litigation. 24 In addition, many policies and procedures documents that are requested in 25 discovery contain highly sensitive and confidential materials that deal with CHP 26 officers’ tactics and practices, the public disclosure of which will put such officers’ 27 lives at risk. Public disclosure of these materials will also hamper and impair law 28 enforcement activities, including detection of criminal activity and apprehension of 1 criminal offenders.

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

Related

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)
RYAN P. WALTERS, an Individual v. State of California, by and through the California Highway Patrol, Beau Biter, Enrique Ayala, John Betz, and Brandon Urrutia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-p-walters-an-individual-v-state-of-california-by-and-through-the-cacd-2026.