UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
October 31, 2012
GRISELDA MUNOZ, ET AL.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheri Pym United States Magistrate Judge
The foregoing stipulation is approved and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), it is ORDERED that Defendant United States of America is authorized to release to Plaintiff's counsel, and this Court, the following documents without obtaining prior written consent of the individuals to whom the records pertain: In particular, Plaintiff seeks 1) reports relating to the investigation of Plaintiff's allegations, including an investigative report Defendant obtained from the Riverside Sheriff's Office; 2) statements, diagrams, photographs, videotapes, and audio recordings relating to the investigation of Plaintiff's allegations; 3) documents from Luis Hermosillo's official personnel folder; 4) Luis Hermosillo's training records; 5) Luis Hermosillo's disciplinary records; 6) a radio contact ICAD report maintained by CBP; 7) the United States Border Patrol Lesson Plan (Federal Law Enforcement Center); 8) a Memorandum dated April 29, 2008 regarding Law Enforcement Authorities of a Border Patrol Agent; 9) a memorandum dated April 2, 2007 regarding CBP's Indio Station Standard Operating Procedure; 10) a Memorandum dated July 3, 2008 regarding Updated Office of Border Patrol Cannine Unit Policy and Procedures; 11) a memorandum dated June 30, 2008 and attached OBP Canine Unit Policies and Procedures; 12) Border Patrol Handbook sections 6, 11.6 and 31; 13) Officer's Handbook (M-68) Guide for Proper Conduct and Relationships with Agents and the General Public; 14) Recordings of Highway 86 Checkpoint from June 13, 2009; 15) Detection Dog Handler School Lesson Plan Index and Lesson Plan; and 16) Border Patrol Canine Policy and memoranda. The parties may add additional documents to this Protective Order without seeking an amendment of this Protective Order by written stipulation executed by counsel and marking the documents as set forth in paragraph 2 below.
Such disclosure is subject to the following conditions:
1. For purposes of this Protective Order, the term "record" shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4).
2. The government records described above shall be marked "PRODUCED SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" or "SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" or contain a similar marking, and may be used only for purposes of this litigation. For any government records whose medium makes such stamping impracticable, the case and/or cover shall be marked "PRODUCED SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" or "SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" or contain a similar marking. Except as provided herein, no person having access to the records designated as subject to this Order of the information therein shall make public disclosure of those records or the information contained therein without further ORDER of the Court.
3. The information and documents covered herein shall be held in strict confidentiality and may be used solely for purposes of this case. The Plaintiff's attorneys shall limit the dissemination of this information and making of copies of any documents subject to this Protective Order to those necessary to the attorneys' activities as counsel for the Plaintiff in this action. Any government documents or information produced by Defendant that are designated as subject to this Protective Order shall be used by Plaintiff's attorney only for purposes of litigating this case, including any subsequent appeals, and shall not be disclosed to the Plaintiffs, or to any other person except as provided herein.
4. Except as otherwise ordered by this Court, any documents and information subject to this Protective Order may be disclosed only to the following persons: 1) counsel, and their partners, associates, secretaries, paralegal assistants, and employees of such counsel to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services in this action; 2) persons retained by counsel to assist in preparation for any hearing, or to serve as expert witnesses or consultants, provided that such disclosure is reasonably and in good faith calculated to aid in litigating this action; 3) persons to whom counsel determine may be called as witnesses in this case, including Luis Hermosillo.
5. All individuals to whom documents or information subject to this Protective Order are disclosed, other than the Court and Court personnel, shall be informed of and agree with the terms of this Protective Order and shall not disclose the documents or information subject to this Protective Order to the public or to any person or entity, and shall execute a written declaration substantially in the form of Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
6. Except for Plaintiffs Griselda Munoz, Blianda Munoz and Alfonso Lopez viewing video footage depicting their actions and Plaintiffs listening to any recordings of statements made by them, Plaintiffs are not permitted to possess or review the records, documents or other items produced by the Defendant to their attorneys pursuant to the Protective Order. In the event that Plaintiffs' attorneys determine that it is necessary to discuss protected information, or matters derived therefrom, with the Plaintiffs, or any persons other than those listed in paragraph 4 and 5 above, Plaintiffs' attorneys will contact defense counsel for the purpose of arranging a stipulation to amend the Protective Order to permit such disclosure to Plaintiff. If the parties cannot agree, Plaintiffs' attorney must file an application with the Court pursuant to Local Rule 37 to permit such disclosure specifying why the disclosure is necessary and what safeguards will be in place to protect the confidentiality of the information.
7. Unless the Court has previously ruled that a document or information is not subject to this Protective Order, government documents may only be presented to the Court with an application to file the document or information under seal. Should the parties seek to use documents or information subject to this Protective Order in open Court or at trial, orally or through documents, either as trial exhibits or as part of a public filing, they must first seek an Order from the Court that the information is relevant and may be publicly disclosed.
8. Any deposition testimony or exhibits which incorporate records subject to this Protective Order, or information derived from categories 6-16 referenced on page 2 of this Order, shall be designated as confidential and if filed with the Court, shall be filed with an application to file the documents under seal pursuant to and in accordance with Local Rule 79-5.1., or properly redacted pursuant to the Privacy Act.
9. The Parties shall have the right to fully use any records subject to this Protective Order in any appellate proceedings, including without limitation, in briefs and in argument, provided that any portion of such appellate filings containing information subject to this Protective Order shall be filed under seal and/or redacted in the same manner as in district court filings as set forth above.
10. The protected documents and discovery responses, and all copies thereof, produced in connection with this action must be returned by Plaintiffs' counsel or other receiving party to Defendant upon the entry of dismissal or other final disposition of this case, including any subsequent appeals. Within thirty days of the conclusion of this action and any subsequent appeals, Plaintiffs' counsel or other person receiving protected documents and discovery responses must certify in writing that all protected documents and discovery responses, and all copies thereof, have been returned to Defendant. Within forty-five days of the entry of dismissal or other final disposition of this case, including any subsequent appeals, Plaintiffs' counsel or other person receiving protected documents and discovery responses must also certify in writing that any documents they or their attorneys or agents have created which contain information protected hereunder derived solely from the protected documents and discovery responses have been destroyed or redacted; provided, however, that no party is required to destroy or redact any document that has been filed with this Court or with a Court of Appeals in connection with this action.
11. Neither CBP nor the United States Attorney's Office, the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, nor any of their officers, agents, employees or attorneys, shall bear any responsibility or liability for any disclosure of any documents obtained by Plaintiffs' counsel under this Protective Order, or of any information contained in such documents.
12. This Protective Order does not constitute any ruling on the question of whether any particular document or category of information is properly discoverable and does not constitute any ruling on any potential objection to the relevance, or admissibility of any record, other than objections based on the Privacy Act.
13. Other than explicitly set forth herein, this Protective Order does not apply to any information or documents subject to a claim of privilege or other basis of exclusion, and this Protective Order shall not be precedent for adopting any procedure with respect to the disclosure of any such other information.
I have read, I understand, and I agree to be bound by the terms in the following documents, filed and approved by the Court in the case captioned Munoz v. United States; CV 11-0504 RGK (SPx):
(a) Joint Stipulation for Protective Order; and
(b) Protective Order.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.