Yesenia Pena v. City of Azusa

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 7, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-07458
StatusUnknown

This text of Yesenia Pena v. City of Azusa (Yesenia Pena v. City of Azusa) 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
Yesenia Pena v. City of Azusa, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 || Mildred K. O'Linn (State Bar No. 159055) @manninglip-com 2 || Craig Smith (State Bar No. 265676) craig emit @omarningkass.com 3 || MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 4|/801 S. Figueroa St, 15" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 5 || Telephone: Gb) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 6 Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF || AZUSA 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 10 =| YESENIA PENA, individually and as Case No. 2:22-CV-07458 SB (MRWx) Successor in Interest to JESU 12 || FLORES, deceased; AMBER Magistrate Judge, Michael R. Wilner] TORRES, individually, 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiffs, ORDER 614 v. (MRW VERSION 4/19) 15 CITY OF AZUSA, a municipal entity; Check if submitted without material 16 || and DOES | through 10, inclusive,, modifications to MRW form 4 17 Defendant. 18 1. INTRODUCTION 20 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 23 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 28 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment

1 || under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 2 ||in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 3 || file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 4 || procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 5 || seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 6 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a § || protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace 9 || officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for 10 || the following reasons. a} Il First, Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of 12 || privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein 13 || that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective 14 || procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 15|}1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16 || 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies KM! —17]|to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege 18 || law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying 19 || [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 20 || 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based 21 || “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf 22 || Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Defendants 23 || further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can 24 || threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. 25 Second, Defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement 26 || agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official 27 || information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client 28 || privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of

1 || their peace officers — particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files 2 || that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or 3 || evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering 4 || legal advice or analysis — potentially including but not limited to 5 || evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, 6 || evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports 7 || prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering 8 || legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. 9 || 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. 11 || Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998); Hamstreet v. 12 || Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United 13 || States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants further 14 || contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public 15 entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that 16 || uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and 18 || related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open 19 || and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that 20 || can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial 21 || measures that may be required. 22 Third, Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the 23 ||)same rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is 24 || contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of 25 || officers’ compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 26 || Cal.3d 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V. 27 Accordingly, Defendants contend that, without a protective order 28 || preventing such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely

1 || substantially impair and harm defendant public entity’s interests in candid self- 2 || critical analysis, frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information from 3 || witnesses, preserving the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace officers 4 || and peace officers’ families and associates, protecting the privacy officers of peace 5 || officers, and preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally 6 || undermined by publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information — as can 7 ||and often does result in litigation. 8 || Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve the 9 || respective interests of the parties without the need to further burden the Court with 10 || such issues. Specifically, the parties jointly contend that, absent this Stipulation and 11 || its associated Protective Order, the parties' respective privilege interests may be 12 || impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its associated Protective Order 13 || may avoid such harm by permitting the parties to facilitate discovery with reduced 14 || risk that privileged and/or sensitive/confidential information will become matters of 15 public record. 2 16 |} 2. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Action: Yesenia Pena, et. al. v City of Azusa, et. al. Case No. 2:22-CV- 18 ||}07458-MRW 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 19 || designation of information or items under this Order. 20 2.3.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Yesenia Pena v. City of Azusa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yesenia-pena-v-city-of-azusa-cacd-2023.