# Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana

> District Court, C.D. California · April 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982900

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** April 3, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982900

## Opinion text

1 DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA,
TAMARA A. BUSH, SB #197153 RUUD & ROMO
2 TBush@dykema.com A Professional Law Corporation
SAMANTHA J. HUGHES, SB #299021 ANGELA M. POWELL SB #191876
3 SJHughes@dykema.com Angela.Powell@aalrr.com
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2200 ERIC GAMBOA SB # 311924
4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Eric.Gamboa@aalrr.com
Telephone: (213) 457-1800 12800 Center Court Dr. South, Ste. 300
5 Facsimile: (213) 457-1850 Cerritos, California 90703-9364
Telephone: (562) 653-3200
6 Attorneys for Defendants Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA;
7 U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Attorneys for Defendants
U-HAUL CO. OF WASHINGTON CITY OF FONTANA; CHIEF
8 WILLIAM GREEN; SERGEANT
HADSELL STORMER RENICK & KYLE SLUSSER; OFFICER
9 DAI LLP JACOB GREGG; LIEUTENANT
DAN STORMER, ESQ. SB #101967 MATT KRAUT; CHRISTOPHER
10 DStormer@hadsellstormer.com GONZALES; and OFFICER
BRIAN OLNEY, ESQ. SB #298089 ANDRES RODRIGUEZ
11 Bolney@hadsellstormer.com
128 North Fair Oaks Avenue
12 Pasadena, California 91103
Telephone: (626) 585-9600
13 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff
OSCAR CORONA
15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION
18 OSCAR CORONA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00034-JGB (SPx)

19 Plaintiff, Honorable Jesus G. Bernal
Courtroom 1 (Riverside)
20 v. Magistrate Sheri Pvm
Courtroom 3 (Riverside)
21 CITY OF FONTANA; CHIEF
WILLIAM GREEN; SERGEANT AMENDED STIPULATED
22 KYLE SLUSSER; OFFICER JACOB PROTECTIVE ORDER
GREGG; LIEUTENANT MATT
23 KRAUT; CHRISTOPHER Complaint Filed: 01-07-22
GONZALEZ; OFFICER ANDRES Corrected First Amended
24 RODRIGUEZ; U-HAUL CO. OF Complaint Filed: 10-18-22
CALIFORNIA; U-HAUL CO. OF 2nd Amended Complaint 01-19-23
25 WASHINGTON; U-HAUL 3rd Party Complaint Filed: 11-14-22
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and 3rd Party Complaint Stricken 02-07-23
26 DOES 1-10,
Discovery Cut-Off: 05-01-23
27 Defendants. Motion Cut-Off 07-17-23
Trial Date: 09-12-23
1
SERGEANT KYLE SLUSSER,
2 CHRISTOPHER GONZALEZ; AND
OFFICER ANDRES RODRIGUEZ,
3
Third Party Plaintiffs,
4
v.
5
U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, U-
6 HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
ROES 1 to 10, inclusive,
7
Third Party Defendants.
8

9
10 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
11 By and through their counsel of record in this action, Plaintiff OSCAR
12 CORONA (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant CITY OF FONTANA, CHIEF WILLIAM
13 GREEN; SERGEANT KYLE SLUSSER; OFFICER JACOB GREGG;
14 LIEUTENANT MATT KRAUT; CHRISTOPHER GONZALES (erroneously sued
15 as Christopher Gonzalez); and OFFICER ANDRES RODRIGUEZ (“City
16 Defendants”); and Defendants U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, U-HAUL CO.
17 OF WASHINGTON, and U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“U-Haul
18 Defendants”), (collectively hereinafter “the parties”) hereby stipulate for the
19 purpose of jointly requesting that the Honorable Court modify the Stipulated
20 Protective Order re confidential documents for the limited purpose of including the
21 newly-named U-Haul Defendants. The parties hereby stipulate in this matter as
22 follows:
23 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS
24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential,
25 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public
26 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may
27 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to
1 Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or
2 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and
3 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential
4 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as
5 set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not
6 entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets
7 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied
8 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal.
9 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT
10 1.1 Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of Confidential Materials.
11 The City Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized
12 need for a Protective Order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy
13 in peace officer personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential
14 records for the following reasons.
15 First, the City Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege
16 of privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy
17 therein that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess
18 protective procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936
19 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist.
20 LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law
21 applies to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state
22 privilege law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in
23 applying [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord,
24 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have
25 constitutionally-based “privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police
26 personnel records); cf. Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-
27 1047. The City Defendants further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such
1 and their families/associates.
2 Second, the City Defendants contend that municipalities and law
3 enforcement agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal
4 official information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal
5 attorney-client privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the
6 personnel files of their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace
7 officer personnel files that contain critical self-analysis, internal
8 deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or communications for the
9 purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – potentially including
10 but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or
11 reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or
12 reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or
13 rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon
14 Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997);
15 Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-
16 671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998);
17 Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins.
18 Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). The City
19 Defendants further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from
20 disclosure by the public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable
21 California law and that uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion
22 of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party witness information
23 and statements and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and
24 a chilling of open and honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged
25 misconduct that can erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any
26 remedial measures that may be required.
27 Third, the City Defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the
1 contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of
2 officers’ compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40
3 Cal.3d 822, 828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V.
4 Accordingly, the City Defendants contend that, without a Protective Order
5 preventing such, production of confidential records in the case can and will likely
6 substantially impair and harm the City Defendant public entity’s interests in candid
7 self-critical analysis, frank internal deliberations, obtaining candid information
8 from witnesses, preserving the safety of witnesses, preserving the safety of peace
9 officers and peace officers’ families and associates, protecting the privacy officers
10 of peace officers, and preventing pending investigations from being detrimentally
11 undermined by publication of private, sensitive, or confidential information – as
12 can and often does result in litigation.
13 1.2 U-Haul Defendants’ Contentions re Harm from Disclosure of
14 Confidential Materials
15 Discovery in this action may involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists
16 and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or
17 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and
18 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such
19 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other
20 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding
21 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or
22 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third
23 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be
24 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes,
25 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Examples of U-Haul Defendants’
26 confidential and proprietary information and documents include, but are not limited
27 to marketing strategies, vendor and dealer agreements, training materials and
1 serious harm to the U-Haul Defendants and a loss of competitive advantage.
2 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution
3 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect
4 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties
5 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in
6 the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve
7 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter.
8 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential
9 for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief
10 that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good
11 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case.
12 Protected Material shall not include (a) advertising materials published or
13 intended to be published to the general public; (b) materials that on their face show
14 that they have been published to the general public; or, (c) documents that have
15 been submitted to any government entity without request for confidential treatment,
16 with the exception of personally identifiable information, documents that are
17 protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
18 1.3 Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to Defendants’
19 contentions herein above. Among other things, the City Defendants’ reliance on
20 Pitchess and other state law privileges are inapplicable in this federal question case,
21 in which federal law governs any claim of privilege. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United
22 States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989) (“Questions of privilege that arise in the
23 course of the adjudication of federal rights are ‘governed by the principles of the
24 common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the
25 light of reason and experience.’” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 501)); see also Kelly v. San
26 Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 655 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (“[I]n a civil rights case brought under
27 federal statutes questions of privilege are resolved by federal law. State privilege
1 courts in these kinds of cases.” (citing Kerr v. U.S. District Court for the N. Dist. of
2 Cal., 5111 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975), and Breed v. United States Dist. Ct., 542
3 F.2d 1114, 1115 (9th Cir. 1976)). Nothing in this Stipulation or its associated
4 Protective Order indicates any agreement by Plaintiff with the legal arguments and
5 claimed privileges set forth in § 1.1 above.
6 However, Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so
7 as to preserve the respective interests of the parties without the need to further
8 burden the Court with such issues. Specifically, the parties jointly contend that,
9 absent this Stipulation and its associated Protective Order, the parties’ respective
10 privilege interests may be impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its
11 associated Protective Order may avoid such harm by permitting the parties to
12 facilitate discovery with reduced risk that privileged and/or sensitive/confidential
13 information will become matters of public record.
14 1.4 The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need
15 for protection as to any medical records because of the privacy interests at stake
16 therein. Because of these sensitive interests, a Court Order should address these
17 documents rather than a private agreement between the parties.
18 1.5 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby
19 jointly request that the honorable Court issue/enter, a Protective Order re
20 confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation.
21 However, the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation
22 shall not be construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal
23 statements or privilege claims in this section (§ 1), nor shall this section be
24 construed as part of any such Court Order.
25 1.6 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as
26 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good
27 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and
1 2. DEFINITIONS
2 2.1 Action: Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-
3 00034-JGB (SPx)
4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the
5 designation of information or items under this Order.
6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of
7 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for
8 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in
9 the Good Cause Statement.
10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as
11 their support staff).
12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or
13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as
14 “CONFIDENTIAL.”
15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless
16 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including,
17 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced
18 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.
19 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter
20 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as
21 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.
22 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.
23 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside
24 counsel.
25 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or
26 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.
27 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a
1 have
2 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law
3 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.
4 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors,
5 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their
6 support staffs).
7 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or
8 Discovery Material in this Action.
9 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation
10 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or
11 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium)
12 and their employees and subcontractors.
13 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is
14 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.”
15 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery
16 Material from a Producing Party.
17 3. SCOPE
18 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Protective Order cover not
19 only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or
20 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or
21 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or
22 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.
23 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the
24 trial judge. This Protective Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
25 trial.
26 4. DURATION
27 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as
1 will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press,
2 unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed
3 otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City
4 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing
5 “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from
6 “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents are part of court
7 record). Accordingly, the terms of this Protective Order do not extend to the
8 CONFIDENTIAL information and materials introduced or admitted as an exhibit at
9 trial. Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations
10 imposed by this Protective Order shall remain in effect for any CONFIDENTIAL
11 information and materials that were not introduced or admitted at trial until a
12 Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs.
13 Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and
14 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein
15 after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or
16 reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or
17 applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law.
18 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL
19 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.
20 Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under
21 this Protective Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific
22 material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must
23 designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or
24 written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material,
25 documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not
26 swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Protective Order.
27 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations
1 purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to
2 impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the
3 Designating Party to sanctions.
4 If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it
5 designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must
6 promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the inapplicable designation.
7 5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in
8 this Protective Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as
9 otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for
10 protection under this Protective Order must be clearly so designated before the
11 material is disclosed or produced.
12 Designation in conformity with this Protective Order requires:
13 (a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic
14 documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial
15 proceedings), that the Producing Party affix at a minimum, the legend
16 “CONFIDENTIAL” (hereinafter “CONFIDENTIAL legend”), to each page that
17 contains protected material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page
18 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected
19 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). The
20 CONFIDENTIAL legend should not cover or obscure any text or images.
21 A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents available for inspection
22 need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated
23 which documents it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and
24 before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be
25 deemed “CONFIDENTIAL.” After the inspecting Party has identified the
26 documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine
27 which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Protective
1 affix the “CONFIDENTIAL legend” to each page that contains Protected Material.
2 If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the
3 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making
4 appropriate markings in the margins).
5 (b) for testimony given in depositions that the Designating Party
6 identify the Disclosure or Discovery Material on the record, before the close of the
7 deposition all protected testimony.
8 (c) for information produced in some form other than documentary
9 and for any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place
10 on the exterior of the container or containers in which the information is stored the
11 legend “CONFIDENTIAL.” If only a portion or portions of the information
12 warrants protection, the Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the
13 protected portion(s).
14 5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent
15 failure to designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive
16 the Designating Party’s right to secure protection under this Protective Order for
17 such material. Upon timely correction of a designation, the Receiving Party must
18 make reasonable efforts to assure that the material is treated in accordance with the
19 provisions of this Order.
20 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS
21 6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a
22 designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court’s
23 Scheduling Order.
24 6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute
25 resolution process under Local Rule 37.1 et seq.
26 6.3 The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on
27 the Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper
1 parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating
2 Party has waived or withdrawn the confidentiality designation, all parties
3 shall continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is
4 entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until the Court rules on the
5 challenge.
6 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL
7 7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is
8 disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this
9 Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this Action. Such
10 Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the
11 conditions described in this Protective Order. When the Action has been
12 terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of section 13 below
13 (FINAL DISPOSITION).
14 Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a
15 location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons
16 authorized under this Protective Order.
17 7.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless
18 otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a
19 Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated
20 “CONFIDENTIAL” only to:
21 (a) The Receiving Party;
22 (b) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in this Action,
23 as well as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably
24 necessary to disclose the information for this Action;
25 (c) the officers, directors, and employees (including House
26 Counsel) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for
27 this Action;
1 (d) Experts (as defined in this Protective Order) of the Receiving
2 Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have
3 signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);
4 (e) the Court and its personnel;
5 (f) court reporters and their staff;
6 (g) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and
7 Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action
8 and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound”
9 (Exhibit A);
10 (h) the author or recipient of a document containing the information
11 or a custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information;
12 (i) during their depositions, witnesses, and attorneys for witnesses,
13 in the Action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary provided: (1) the
14 deposing party requests that the witness sign the form attached as Exhibit 1 hereto;
15 and (2) they will not be permitted to keep any confidential information unless they
16 sign the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), unless
17 otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the Court. Pages of
18 transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected
19 Material may be separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to
20 anyone except as permitted under this Protective Order; and
21 (j) any mediator or settlement officer, and their supporting
22 personnel, mutually agreed upon by any of the parties engaged in settlement
23 discussions.
24 8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED
25 PRODUCED IN OTHER LITIGATION
26 If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation
27 that compels disclosure of any information or items designated in this Action as
1 (a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification
2 shall include a copy of the subpoena or court order;
3 (b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order
4 to issue in the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the
5 subpoena or order is subject to this Protective Order. Such notification shall include
6 a copy of this Stipulated Protective Order; and
7 (c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be
8 pursued by the Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected.
9 If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served
10 with the subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in
11 this action as “CONFIDENTIAL” before a determination by the court from which
12 the subpoena or order issued, unless the Party has obtained the Designating Party’s
13 permission. The Designating Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking
14 protection in that court of its confidential material and nothing in these provisions
15 should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a Receiving Party in this Action
16 to disobey a lawful directive from another court.
17 9. A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE
18 PRODUCED IN THIS LITIGATION
19 (a) the terms of this Protective Order are applicable to information
20 produced by a Non-Party in this Action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.”
21 Such information produced by Non-Parties in connection with this litigation is
22 protected by the remedies and relief provided by this Protective Order. Nothing in
23 these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party from seeking
24 additional protections.
25 (b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to
26 produce a Non-Party’s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is
27 subject to an agreement with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s
1 (1) promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-
2 Party that some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality
3 agreement with a Non-Party;
4 (2) promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated
5 Protective Order in this Action, the relevant discovery request(s), and a
6 reasonably specific description of the information requested; and
7 (3) make the information requested available for inspection by the
8 Non-Party, if requested.
9 (c) If the Non-Party fails to seek a protective order from this Court within
10 14 days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party
11 may produce the Non-Party’s confidential information responsive to the discovery
12 request. If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall
13 not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to the
14 confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the Court.
15 Absent a court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and
16 expense of seeking protection in this Court of its Protected Material.
17 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL
18 If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has
19 disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized
20 under this Protective Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in
21 writing the Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best
22 efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (c) inform the
23 person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of
24 this Protective Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the
25 “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as
26 Exhibit A.
27
1 11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE
2 PROTECTED MATERIAL
3 When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain
4 inadvertently produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other
5 protection, the obligations of the Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal
6 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This provision is not intended to modify
7 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for
8 production without prior privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
9 502(d) and (e), insofar as the parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure
10 of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work
11 product protection, the parties may incorporate their agreement in the stipulated
12 protective order submitted to the Court.
13 12. MISCELLANEOUS
14 12.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Protective Order abridges the
15 right of any person to seek its modification by the Court in the future.
16 12.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this
17 Protective Order no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to
18 disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in
19 this Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on
20 any ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by this Protective
21 Order.
22 12.3 Filing Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any
23 Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material
24 may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the
25 specific Protected Material at issue. If a Party’s request to file Protected Material
26 under seal is denied by the Court, then the Receiving Party may file the information
27 in the public record unless otherwise instructed by the Court.
1 13. FINAL DISPOSITION
2 After the final disposition of this Action, as defined in paragraph 4, within 60
3 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
4 return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. As
5 used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts,
6 compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the
7 Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the
8 Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if
9 not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60-day deadline that
10 (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was
11 returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any
12 copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or
13 capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel
14 are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial,
15 deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition
16 and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert
17 work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival
18 copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to this Protective
19 Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION).
20 14. VIOLATION
21 Any violation of this Protective Order may be punished by any and all
22 appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or
23 monetary sanctions.
24 ///
25 ///
26
27
1 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
2
3 DATED: March 23, 2023 DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP

4
By: /s/ Tamara A. Bush
5 TAMARA A. BUSH
SAMANTHA J. HUGHES
6
Attorneys for Defendants,
7 U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA;
8 U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
U-HAUL CO. OF WASHINGTON
9
10 DATED: March 23, 2023 HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP
11

12
By: /s/ Brian Olney
13 DAN STORMER
BRIAN OLNEY
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
15 OSCAR CORONA
16

17
DATED: March 23, 2023 ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD &
18 ROMO

19 By: /s/ Angela Powell
20 ANGELA POWELL
MAE G. ALBERTO
21
ERIC GAMBOA
22 Attorneys for Defendants,
CITY OF FONTANA; CHIEF WILLIAM
23
GREEN; SERGEANT KYLE SLUSSER;
24 OFFICER JACOB GREGG;
LIEUTENANT MATT KRAUT;
25
CHRISTOPHER GONZALEZ; OFFICER
26 ANDRES RODRIGUEZ

27
1 ATTESTATION
2 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4, the signatories listed above, and on whose
3 behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the
4 filing.
5
6 /s/ Tamara A. Bush
TAMARA A. BUSH
7

8
9 FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11 DATED:_April 3, 2023 _____________________________________
Honorable Sheri Pym
12
United States District Court Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 EXHIBIT A
2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND
3 I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of
4 _________________ [print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury
5 that I have read in its entirety and understand the Stipulated Protective Order that
6 was issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California
7 on [date] in the case of Oscar Corona v. City of Fontana, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-
8 00034-JGB (SPx). I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the terms of this
9 Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so
10 comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I
11 solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item that
12 is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict
13 compliance with the provisions of this Order.
14 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court
15 for the Central District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this
16 Stipulated Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after
17 termination of this action. I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or
18 type full name] of _______________________________________ [print or type
19 full address and telephone number] as my California agent for service of process in
20 connection with this action or any proceedings related to enforcement of this
21 Stipulated Protective Order.
22
23 Dated: __________________________
24 City and State where sworn and signed: __________________________________
25
26 Printed Name: __________________________________
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9982900. Public record. Not legal advice.