Joseph M. Hicks v. City of Santa Barbara et al

Filing 36

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky re Stipulation for Protective Order 35 . (NOTE: CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROPOSED ORDER). (ib)

1
2
3
4
5
6

BRIAN A. VOGEL, SBN 167493
[e-mail]
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC
770 County Square Dr., Ste. 104
Ventura, CA 93003
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff JOSEPH M. HICKS

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, SANTA
)
BARBARA POLICE DEPARTMENT
)
OFFICER JUSTIN CRUZ, an
)
individual, DEPARTMENT OF
)
ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL
)
OFFICER LUIS MADRIZ, an
)
individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________

[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause being shown therefore,

21
22

Case No. CV 13-9016 FMO (RZx)

JOSEPH M. HICKS, an individual,

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THE FOLLOWING:

23

1.

24

The information and items subject to this agreement (“Confidential

25

Information”) are as follows:

26

a.

27

The Santa Barbara Police Department (“SBPD”) personnel file pertaining to

Defendant Justin Cruz, including but not limited to, all documents relating to the history

28
1

1
2

of employment from inception to the present such as job application, position job
description, performance appraisals, employee development plans, employee self

3
4

assessments, records of formal counseling sessions, notes on attendance, performance

5

improvement plan documentation, disciplinary action, reports, and employee recognition

6

documents. Defendant Cruz will produce these documents with redactions of all

7
8
9
10
11

information relating to Cruz’s personal residence information, past and present, as well as
personal identifying information such as Social Security number, and any information
relating to his personal relationships outside of his employment at SBPD including with
his spouse, family members, friends and significant others.

12
13

b.

The City of Santa Barbara Human Resources Department personnel file pertaining

14

to Defendant Cruz, including application of for employment, W-4 forms, personnel action

15

forms, military leave and deployment records.

16

c.

Documents referring or relating to the compensation and employments benefits

17
18

paid to the Defendant Cruz for his services as an SBPD employee.

19

d.

20

SBPD Internal Affairs file pertaining to the complaints of Joseph Hicks and Craig

Jenkins related to this incident, including but not limited to, citizen complaints,

21
22

investigations, audio and/or video recordings and transcripts of those recordings, of

23

interviews conducted, witness statements, reports, and dispositions.

24

e.

25

SBPD Internal Affairs files pertaining to Defendant Cruz on incidents other than

on December 7, 2011, including but not limited to, citizen complaints, investigations,

26
27

audio and/or video recordings and transcripts of those recordings, of interviews

28

conducted, witness statements, reports, and dispositions.
2

1
2

f.

Documents referring or relating to discipline, including, but not limited to, verbal

and written reprimands or loss of compensation or any other employment benefit, that

3
4

Defendant Cruz received during the term of his employment as a law enforcement officer

5

at SBPD.

6

g.

Documents referring or relating to education and training the Defendant CRUZ

7
8

has received relating to his duties as a law enforcement officer at SBPD.
2.

9
10
11

The Confidential Information delineated in the previous paragraph is the

proper subject of a privilege. The Court, therefore, orders that the information and items
are deemed confidential.

12

3.

13

The Court may modify the protective order at any time for good cause

14

shown and upon notice to the affected parties. The parties themselves may further

15

stipulate to add or delete item or information subject to the protective order, subject to

16

court approval..
17

4.

18
19
20

Defendants’ concerns of privilege and other objections raised in their

response and outlines in their privilege logs are adequately protected by this protective
order.

21
22
23
24
25

5.

The production of the Confidential Information referenced shall be

subject to the following protections:
(a)

The Confidential Information will be considered confidential

information. This confidential information shall be used solely in connection with this

26
27

case and the preparation and trial of this case, any settlement conference, private

28

mediation or arbitration conducted in connection with this case, or any related appellate
3

1

proceeding, and not for any other purpose.

2

(b)

The Confidential Information shall not be disclosed by Plaintiff

3
4

or his attorneys to anyone other than:

5

(1)

Plaintiff’s attorneys and their staff;

6

(2)

Any expert or consultant hired or retained by Plaintiff or

7

their attorneys;

8

(3)

9
10

Any judge or magistrate judge presiding over any aspect of
this case;

11

(4)

Any mediator, arbitrator or other settlement officer agreed

12

upon by the parties or appointed to assess and evaluate the

13

dispute for the purposes of settlement negotiation; and

14
15

(5)

Subject to the below exceptions, any witnesses disclosed by

16

any party pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal
17
18

Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules, or any deponent in

19

the course of testifying or preparing for testimony.

20

(c)

The Confidential Information shall not be provided to news,

21
22

television, radio, or placed on the Internet.
(d)

23
24
25

All persons to whom the Confidential Information is disclosed will

be apprised of the protective order and of its binding nature on all persons connected with
this case.

26
27
28

(e)

To the extent that the Confidential Information is disclosed to a

witness pursuant to the protective order, the Confidential Information shall be
4

1
2

appropriately marked “Confidential Item produced in Hicks v. City of Santa Barbara, et
al., United States District Court Case No. CV 13-9016 FMO (RZx), subject to protective

3
4
5
6

order.”
6.

All copies of the Confidential Information shall be returned to the

disclosing party within a reasonable time period after the conclusion of this action.

7
8
9
10
11

7.

The admissibility of the Confidential Information herein disclosed is not

conceded, and the parties each have the right to seek exclusion of the Confidential
Information or their existence either in limine or during trial.
8.

Disclosure of the Confidential Information shall be made within ten (10)

12
13

days of receipt by Defendants of this signed and conformed order of the Court.

14

This protective order shall not govern in connection with dispositive

15

motions or at trial. If protection is desired in connection with those proceedings, a

16

separate application must be made, and directed to the judicial officer who will preside in
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

connection with those proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2014

_________________________________
Hon. Ralph Zarefsky
Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Central District of California

24
25
26
27
28
5