Sylvia Arispe v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 24, 2022·No. 5:21-cv-00417·Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:21-cv-00417-JWH-SP Document 56 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:575

1 Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) epr@manningllp.com 2 Craig Smith (State Bar No. 265676) gcs@manningllp.com 3 Anita K. Clarke (State Bar No. 321015) akc@manningllp.com ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 5 801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 6 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 7 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF ROMERO, DEPUTY RODNEY SCOTT, CHAD BIANCO, CAPTAIN JAMES MEGAN S. CASTILLO, NAVAIN L. WILLIAMS, and RAYMUNDO CLAUDIO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

SYLVIA ARISPE, an individual and Case No. 5:21-CV-00417-JWH(SPx) successor-in-interest of CARLOS ALEXANDER, deceased; [Assigned to the Honorable John W. Holcomb, Magistrate, Sheri Pym] Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,; DEPUTY CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS VICTOR ROMERO, #N6924; DEPUTY RODNEY SCOTT, #N4086; DEPUTY JACOB PADILLA, #5967; SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO; CAPTAIN JAMES KRACHMER; MATHEW CHANG; MEGAN S. CASTILLO; NAVAIN L. WILLIAMS; RAYMUNDO CLAUDIO; JAQUELINE HERNANDEZ, a nominal defendant, Defendant.

Complaint Filed: 3/8/2021

Case No. 5:21-CV-00417-JWH(SPx) [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:21-cv-00417-JWH-SP Document 56 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:576

1 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES (“Stipulation for 2 Entry of Protective Order re Confidential Documents”), and pursuant to the Court’s 3 inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to the Court’s authority 4 under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the United States District 5 Court, Central District of California Local Rules; after due consideration of all of the 6 relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon such other evidence 7 or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, and in 8 furtherance of the interests of justice, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A. 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 or defending this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Order. The parties acknowledge that the Stipulation and associated Order do not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection the Order affords extends only to the specified information or items that are entitled to treatment as confidential. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth below, that the Stipulation and Order create no entitlement to file confidential information under seal; Central District Local Rules 79-5.1 and 79-5.2 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. Nothing in the Stipulation or associated Order shall be construed so as to require or mandate that any Party disclose or produce privileged information or records that could be designated as Confidential Documents/Protected Material 2 Case No. 5:21-CV-00417-JWH(SPx) [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:21-cv-00417-JWH-SP Document 56 Filed 03/24/22 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:577

1 hereunder. 3 1.1. Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials. 4 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a 5 protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer 6 personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the 7 following reasons. This action is likely to involve confidential peace officer personnel 8 file documents, as well as personal identifying information of third party witnesses 9 (i.e. addresses, telephone numbers, etc.), for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, personnel file information, otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. First, Defendants contend 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 v. 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 is 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 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 3 Case No. 5:21-CV-00417-JWH(SPx) [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 5:21-cv-00417-JWH-SP Document 56 Filed 03/24/22 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:578

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

Sylvia Arispe v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Sylvia Arispe v. County of Riverside (Sylvia Arispe v. County of Riverside) — 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)