Sandy Sedlick v. City of Redlands

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 5, 2023
Docket5:23-cv-00457
StatusUnknown

This text of Sandy Sedlick v. City of Redlands (Sandy Sedlick v. City of Redlands) 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
Sandy Sedlick v. City of Redlands, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

11 THE SEHAT LAW FIRM, PLC

Cameron Sehat, Esq. (SBN 256535) 22 5100 Campus Drive, Suite 200 33 Newport Beach, CA 92612

Telephone: (949) 825-5200 44 Facsimile: (949) 313-5001 55 Email: Cameron@sehatlaw.com

66 Attorney for Plaintiffs, SANDY SEDLICK and 77 JOSEPH SEDLICK

88 JONES MAYER 99 James R. Touchstone, SBN 184584

1100 jrt@jones-mayer.com Danielle J. Williams, SBN 317229 1111 djw@jones-mayer.com

1122 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 1133 Telephone: (714) 446-1400

1144 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448

1155 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF REDLANDS,

1166 YESSENIA BLEVENS, TYLER FRISCH, TYLER SIMONSEN, AND ISAAC SPIEGEL 1177

1188 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1199 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2211 SANDY SEDLICK and JOSEPH Case No: 5:23-cv-00457-JGB-KK

2222 SEDLICK, individually and as Judge: Hon. Jesus G. Bernal successors-in-interest Of the Estate of Magistrate Judge: Hon. Kenly Kiya Kato 2233 the deceased ROBERT SAUL

2244 JUAREZ IV,

2255 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED

2266 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER

2277 v. 11 CITY OF REDLANDS, YESSENIA

BLEVENS, TYLER FRISCH, TYLER 22 SIMONSEN, ISAAC SPIEGEL, and 33 DOES 1-10 inclusive,

44 Defendants. 55

66 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

77 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Defendants, CITY OF

88 REDLANDS, YESSENIA BLEVENS, TYLER FRISCH, TYLER SIMONSEN,

99 ISAAC SPIEGEL, and Plaintiffs SANDY SEDLICK and JOSEPH SEDLICK

1100 (collectively "the Parties"), by their undersigned counsel, agree to be bound to the

1111 terms of the following Protective Order. The Parties represent that pre-trial

1122 discovery in this case is likely to include the production of information and/or

1133 documents that are confidential and/or privileged including the production of peace

1144 officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Parties agree

1155 includes: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational

1166 and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical

1177 history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal,

1188 or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an

1199 event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer

2200 perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or

2211 her duties including compelled statements by peace officers unless specifically

2222 denoted as “not confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Defendants

2233 contend that such information is privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City

2244 of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United

2255 States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394,

2266 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require the

2277 production of certain Redlands Police Department’s Office Policies and Procedures 11 safety, raise security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel 22 file information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures 33 are hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". 44 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 55 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 66 officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that 77 the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees 88 due to the nature of their profession. Finally, Defendants contend that the benefit of 99 public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the potential 1100 disadvantages are great. 1111 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to 1122 facilitate pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive 1133 disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 1144

1155 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 1166

1177 Respectfully submitted, 1188

1199 Dated: June 29, 2023 THE SEHAT LAW FIRM, PLC

2211 By: /s/ Cameron Sehat Cameron Sehat 2222 Attorney for Plaintiffs, 2233 SANDY SEDLICK and JOSEPH SEDLICK

2255 Dated: June 29, 2023 JONES MAYER

2277 By:__/s/ Danielle J. Williams___________ JAMES R. TOUCHSTONE 11 DANIELLE J. WILLIAMS

Attorneys for Defendants, 22 CITY OF REDLANDS, YESSENIA 33 BLEVENS, TYLER FRISCH, TYLER

SIMONSEN, and ISAAC SPIEGEL 44

55 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 66 PER THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND GOOD CAUSE 77 APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the terms and conditions of this 88 Protective Order shall govern the handling of Discovery Materials containing 99 Confidential Information in matter of Sandy Sedlick, et al. v. City of Redlands, et 1100 al., Case No.: 5:23-cv-00457-JGB-KK ("the Litigation"): 1111 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 1122 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential,

1133 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public

1144 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may

1155 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to

1166 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this

1177 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to

1188 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends

1199 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment

2200 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth

2211 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them

to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 2222 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 2233 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 2244 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2255 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court recognizes that 2266 pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include the production of information 2277 and/or documents that are confidential and/or privileged including the production 11 of peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Court 22 agrees includes: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members,

33 educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2)

44 Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement,

55 appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints,

66 concerning an event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a

77 peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer

88 performed his or her duties including compelled statements by peace officers except

99 such information as is deemed “not confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section

1100 832.7.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sandy Sedlick v. City of Redlands, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandy-sedlick-v-city-of-redlands-cacd-2023.