Sylvia Arispe v. County of Riverside

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 24, 2022
Docket5:21-cv-00417
StatusUnknown

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

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 4 MANNING & KASS 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 8 RIVERSIDE, DEPUTY ROBERT ROMERO, DEPUTY RODNEY SCOTT, 9 DEPUTY JACOB PADILLA, SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, CAPTAIN JAMES 10 KRACHMER, MATHEW CHANG, MEGAN S. CASTILLO, NAVAIN L. 11 WILLIAMS, and RAYMUNDO CLAUDIO 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 14

15 SYLVIA ARISPE, an individual and Case No. 5:21-CV-00417-JWH(SPx) 16 successor-in-interest of CARLOS ALEXANDER, deceased; [Assigned to the Honorable John W. 17 Holcomb, Magistrate, Sheri Pym] Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 PROTECTIVE ORDER RE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,; DEPUTY CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 20 VICTOR ROMERO, #N6924; DEPUTY RODNEY SCOTT, #N4086; 21 DEPUTY JACOB PADILLA, #5967; SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO; CAPTAIN 22 JAMES KRACHMER; MATHEW CHANG; MEGAN S. CASTILLO; 23 NAVAIN L. WILLIAMS; RAYMUNDO CLAUDIO; 24 JAQUELINE HERNANDEZ, a nominal defendant, 25 Defendant. 26

27 Complaint Filed: 3/8/2021

28 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:

10 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. 11 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production 12 of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 13 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting or defending 14 this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 15 petition the court to enter the following Order. 16 The parties acknowledge that the Stipulation and associated Order do not 17 confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 18 protection the Order affords extends only to the specified information or items that 19 are entitled to treatment as confidential. 20 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth below, that the Stipulation and 21 Order create no entitlement to file confidential information under seal; Central District 22 Local Rules 79-5.1 and 79-5.2 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 23 reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 24 court to file material under seal. 25 Nothing in the Stipulation or associated Order shall be construed so as to 26 require or mandate that any Party disclose or produce privileged information or 27 records that could be designated as Confidential Documents/Protected Material 28 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. 2 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT. 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 10 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 11 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 12 among other things, personnel file information, otherwise generally unavailable to the 13 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state 14 or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 15 First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy 16 in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is 17 underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure 18 of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 19 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12- 20 13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based 21 discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is 22 consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] 23 privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 24 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based “privacy rights 25 [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code 26 §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants further contend that 27 uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of 28 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

1 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies 2 have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information 3 privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege 4 (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace 5 officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain 6 critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or 7 communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – 8 potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal 9 Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records 10 or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of 11 obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa 12 Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 13 1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 14 668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); 15 Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. 16 v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sylvia Arispe v. County of Riverside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sylvia-arispe-v-county-of-riverside-cacd-2022.