{"cached_at":"2026-11-10T11:46:21.731210+00:00","cl_docket_id":"66977699","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","id":66977699,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/caed/","court_id":"caed","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9594747/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9592271/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9593843/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/8572/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9083/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2023-03-09T13:21:15.616909-08:00","date_modified":"2025-06-17T14:52:30.330454-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Dale A. Drozd","referred_to_str":"Jeremy D. Peterson","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2023-03-10T03:56:47.361005-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2023-03-09","date_terminated":"2024-06-28","date_last_filing":"2024-06-28","case_name_short":"Bencomo","case_name":"Bencomo v. County of Sacramento","case_name_full":"","slug":"bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento","docket_number":"2:23-cv-00440","docket_number_core":"2300440","docket_number_raw":"2:23-cv-00440","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"DAD","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"JDP","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"425085","cause":"42:1983 Civil Rights Act","nature_of_suit":"Civil Rights: Other","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2023-03-09T13:21:15.614910-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/395042223/","id":395042223,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/404148842/","id":404148842,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-06-28T11:21:24.712316-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-28T11:21:24.790131-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Minute Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-06-28T11:21:24.680138-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-28T11:21:24.680164-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-28","time_filed":"10:49:28","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/392739600/","id":392739600,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/401790357/","id":401790357,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-06-04T14:23:46.918044-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-04T14:23:46.922346-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-06-04T14:23:46.909331-07:00","date_modified":"2024-06-04T14:23:46.909347-07:00","date_filed":"2024-06-04","time_filed":"13:44:24","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-06-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/391078392/","id":391078392,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/400034453/","id":400034453,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/47/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-05-23T16:24:35.388871-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-23T16:27:55.015291-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014449681","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-23T16:24:35.346596-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-23T16:27:55.005765-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-23","time_filed":"15:36:07","entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":149,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/390655240/","id":390655240,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/399603278/","id":399603278,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/45/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-05-20T11:22:28.441949-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-20T11:22:28.512093-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014437946","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-20T11:22:28.416675-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-20T11:22:28.424087-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-20","time_filed":"10:41:53","entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":142,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/390655238/","id":390655238,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/399603276/","id":399603276,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/46/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-05-20T11:22:27.250055-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-20T11:22:27.321575-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014437957","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-20T11:22:27.140532-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-20T11:22:27.212120-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-20","time_filed":"10:43:09","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":146,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/390374705/","id":390374705,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/399315227/","id":399315227,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/44/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-05-16T16:25:06.196835-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T23:22:20.842743-08:00","sha1":"c885323b536f19aa43dd4dd60ab2abef5a86d86c","page_count":6,"file_size":185476,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.44.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.44.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4\n\n 5\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n10\n\n11 MANUEL BENCOMO, No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP\n12 Plaintiff,\n13 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 REQUEST TO SEAL\n14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,\n (Doc. No. 42)\n15 Defendants.\n16\n\n17 This matter is before the court on defendants\u2019 notice of request to seal certain documents\n\n18 that have already been publicly filed on the docket in this action. (Doc. No. 42.) For the reasons\n\n19 set forth below, defendants\u2019 request to seal will be granted in part.\n\n20 BACKGROUND\n\n21 This case arises from an incident on January 8, 2023, involving the alleged excessive use\n\n22 of force against plaintiff Manuel Bencomo by a police canine deployed by a law enforcement\n\n23 officer. (Doc. No. 27.) On February 8, 2024, plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint\n\n24 (\u201cFAC\u201d). (Id.) In his FAC, plaintiff alleges that certain defendants have a policy and custom of\n\n25 failing to discipline their subordinates. (Id. at \u00b6 92.) In support of this allegation, plaintiff alleges\n\n26 various examples of incidents where subordinates received \u201cminimal, insignificant and untimely\n\n27 discipline\u201d for their misconduct. (Id.) Relevant here, three alleged incidents involve two non-\n\n28 party deputies who were disciplined for improperly accessing files for personal reasons (id.\n 1\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n 1 \u00b6\u00b6 92(t), 92(p)); sending inappropriate emails from a work-related email address (id. \u00b6 92(p)); and\n\n 2 stalking (id. \u00b6 92(o)).\n\n 3 On May 3, 2024, defendants filed a notice of request to seal, seeking to seal or redact\n\n 4 those specific subparagraphs of the FAC, arguing that they are \u201cimproper because they are\n\n 5 derived from confidential documents subject to a Protective Order.\u201d (Doc. No. 42 at 2.)\n\n 6 Defendants also request to seal or redact the references made to these paragraphs contained in the\n\n 7 parties\u2019 respective briefing on plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc.\n\n 8 No. 22, 24). (Id.)1 Consistent with Local Rule 141(b), defendants filed the request to seal in\n\n 9 camera. In their request to seal, defendants argue that the relevant subparagraphs of plaintiff\u2019s\n\n10 FAC \u201cpertain to highly confidential, immaterial, scurrilous, and inflammatory matters that do not\n\n11 involve facts bearing sufficient resemblance to the fact pattern at issue here to be pertinent, nor\n\n12 show an essential or important relationship between the two bearing on the subject matter of the\n\n13 litigation.\u201d (Req. at 10.) Pursuant to Local Rule 141(c), plaintiff timely submitted an opposition\n\n14 to defendants\u2019 request, also in camera. (Opp\u2019n.)\n\n15 On May 6, 2024, defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority, pointing the court to\n\n16 a decision in a similar case in the Eastern District of California, which addressed a request to seal\n\n17 or redact identical allegations to those at issue here. (Doc. No. 43) (citing Liles v. Cnty. of\n\n18 Sacramento, No. 2:24-cv-00416-KJM-CKD, 2024 WL 1971882 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2024)). In the\n\n19 Liles decision, the district court granted the defendants\u2019 request to seal in part, finding no\n\n20 compelling reasons to seal or redact the at-issue subparagraphs of the complaint in their entirety\n21 but finding compelling reasons to redact the names of the third-party deputies in those\n\n22 subparagraphs. See Liles, 2024 WL 1971882, at *2\u20133.\n\n23 /////\n\n24 /////\n\n25 1\n In their pending request, defendants also seek to seal or redact \u201cany other documents filed with\n26 the Court containing any of the information at subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t) of [p]laintiff\u2019s\n First Amended Complaint[.]\u201d (Req. at 2.) Although defendants\u2019 request to seal did not explicitly\n27 mention their motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 29) as one of the documents to be sealed or redacted,\n because the motion to dismiss also references the subparagraphs, the court will consider it as part\n28 of defendants\u2019 request.\n 2\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n 1 LEGAL STANDARD\n\n 2 All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News,\n\n 3 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (\u201cIt is well-established that the fruits\n\n 4 of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.\u201d).\n\n 5 \u201cHistorically, courts have recognized a \u2018general right to inspect and copy public records and\n\n 6 documents, including judicial records and documents.\u2019\u201d Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,\n\n 7 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc\u2019ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,\n\n 8 597 & n.7 (1978)).\n\n 9 Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors\n\n10 Ass\u2019n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The standards used are based on the type of motion to\n\n11 which the documents to be sealed are attached:\n\n12 [W]e treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently\n from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek\n13 to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions\n must meet the high threshold of showing that \u201ccompelling reasons\u201d\n14 support secrecy. A \u201cgood cause\u201d showing under Rule 26(c) will\n suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.\n15\n\n16 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,\n\n17 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The reason for these two different standards is that \u201c[n]ondispositive\n\n18 motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as\n\n19 a result, the public\u2019s interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to\n\n20 non-dispositive materials.\u201d Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks\n21 omitted).\n\n22 ANALYSIS\n\n23 The parties dispute which standard applies to defendants\u2019 request to seal and whether\n\n24 defendants\u2019 request to seal meets the applicable standard. Plaintiff argues that the \u201ccompelling\n\n25 reasons\u201d standard applies and asserts that no compelling reasons exist to seal the relevant portions\n\n26 of the FAC. (Opp\u2019n at 12\u201325.) In contrast, defendants contend that the \u201cgood cause\u201d standard is\n27 appropriate but argue that even under the \u201ccompelling reasons\u201d standard, the subparagraphs\n\n28 /////\n 3\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n 1 92(o), (p), and (t) of plaintiff\u2019s FAC should be sealed or redacted because they contain\n\n 2 confidential information which serve no other purpose but to humiliate the non-party deputies.\n\n 3 (Req. at 9\u201311.)\n\n 4 The court agrees with plaintiff that the \u201ccompelling reasons\u201d standard applies here since\n\n 5 defendants seek to seal a portion of the FAC, the operative pleading in this case. See Liles, 2024\n\n 6 WL 1971882, at *1 (\u201c[A] request to seal all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the\n\n 7 \u2018compelling reasons\u2019 standard.\u201d) (citation omitted); see also Williams & Cochrane, LLP v.\n\n 8 Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Rsrv., No. 3:17-cv-1436-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 3600417, at\n\n 9 *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017) (\u201c[D]istrict courts generally conclude that the \u2018compelling reasons\u2019\n\n10 standard applies because the complaint initiates the civil action.\u201d) (collecting cases); PUMA SE v.\n\n11 Brooks Sports, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00116-LK, 2024 WL 1557660, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10,\n\n12 2024) (\u201cAlthough the Ninth Circuit has not specified whether a party seeking to seal its operative\n\n13 pleading must meet the \u2018good cause\u2019 or \u2018compelling reasons\u2019 standard, numerous courts within\n\n14 the Circuit have held that the compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the\n\n15 foundation of a lawsuit.\u201d) (collecting cases).\n\n16 Having reviewed the order issued by Chief Judge Mueller in Liles, the court concurs with\n\n17 the analysis set forth therein and adopts that analysis by reference in this order. Like in Liles,\n\n18 here, the court does not find compelling reasons to redact the pertinent subparagraphs of\n\n19 plaintiff\u2019s FAC entirely but does find compelling reasons to redact the names of the non-party\n\n20 deputies in those subparagraphs. Since plaintiff\u2019s alleged injuries stem from excessive force by a\n21 police canine deployed by a law enforcement officer, the incidents involving the non-party\n\n22 deputes in subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t) of the FAC are unrelated to the core issues of this\n\n23 case. Therefore, identifying the deputies by name in those subparagraphs serves improper\n\n24 purposes. See Liles, 2024 WL 1971882, at *2 (\u201cGiven the absence of a connection with the\n\n25 factual allegations in this case and the third-party deputies\u2019 non-involvement in this or related\n\n26 matters, the court finds identifying these deputies by name at this point serves improper purposes,\n27 including the potential promotion of public scandal.\u201d).\n\n28 /////\n 4\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n 1 Accordingly, the court will grant defendants\u2019 request to the extent that it seeks to redact\n\n 2 the names of the non-party deputies in subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t) of the FAC, and seeks to\n\n 3 redact the references to those names made in the parties\u2019 briefing on plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave\n\n 4 to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 22, 24), and defendants\u2019 pending motion to dismiss (Doc.\n\n 5 No. 29).\n\n 6 CONCLUSION\n\n 7 For the reasons explained above,\n\n 8 1. Defendants\u2019 request to seal (Doc. No. 42) is granted in part, as follows:\n\n 9 a. The unredacted version of plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file an amended\n\n10 complaint (Doc. No. 22) is hereby sealed;\n\n11 b. The unredacted version of defendants\u2019 opposition to plaintiff\u2019s motion for\n\n12 leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 24) is hereby sealed;\n\n13 c. The unredacted version of plaintiff\u2019s first amended complaint (Doc.\n\n14 No. 27) is hereby sealed; and\n\n15 d. The unredacted version of defendants\u2019 pending motion to dismiss (Doc.\n\n16 No. 29) is hereby sealed;\n\n17 e. Within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order:\n\n18 i. Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of his motion for leave to file\n\n19 an amended complaint and a redacted version of his first amended\n\n20 complaint, redacting the names of the two non-party deputies\n21 referenced in subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t); and\n\n22 ii. Defendants shall file a redacted version of their opposition to\n\n23 plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a\n\n24 redacted version of their pending motion to dismiss, redacting the\n\n25 names of the two non-party deputies referenced in subparagraphs\n\n26 92(o), (p), and (t) of the first amended complaint; and\n27 f. Defendants\u2019 request to seal is otherwise denied;\n\n28 /////\n 5\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n 1 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that the following\n\n 2 documents have been sealed:\n\n 3 i. Plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc.\n\n 4 No. 22);\n\n 5 ii. Defendants\u2019 opposition to plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file an\n\n 6 amended complaint (Doc. No. 24);\n\n 7 iii. Plaintiff\u2019s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 27); and\n\n 8 iv. Defendants\u2019 pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 29).\n\n 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n10\n Dated: May 16, 2024\n11 DALE A. DROZD\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-05-17T01:53:05.732701-07:00","document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014434297","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND Order on Request to Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-16T16:25:06.176017-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T23:22:20.837049-08:00","date_filed":"2024-05-16","time_filed":"15:50:09","entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":135,"description":" ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/16/2024 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 42 Request to Seal. The clerk is DIRECTED to SEAL 22 Motion for Leave to Amend, 24 Opposition to Motion, 27 First Amended Complaint, and 29 Motion to Dismiss. Within 7 days from the date of this order, the parties are DIRECTED to file redacted versions of the documents identified in the order. (Woodson, A)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/388762645/","id":388762645,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/397679601/","id":397679601,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/43/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-05-06T12:21:32.114266-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-06T12:21:32.120989-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014412201","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-06T12:21:32.055739-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-06T12:21:32.063703-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-06","time_filed":"11:36:48","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":132,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/388229798/","id":388229798,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/397135247/","id":397135247,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/42/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-05-03T12:18:54.559076-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-03T12:21:57.732427-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014409646","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Request to Seal Document(s)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-03T12:18:54.526928-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-03T12:21:57.716132-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-03","time_filed":"11:39:56","entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":130,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/387695841/","id":387695841,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/396581802/","id":396581802,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-05-01T12:21:36.836768-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-01T12:21:36.840438-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Settlement Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-05-01T12:21:36.828403-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-01T12:21:36.828413-07:00","date_filed":"2024-05-01","time_filed":"11:37:29","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-05-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/385038704/","id":385038704,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/393316858/","id":393316858,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-04-17T14:17:11.095890-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-17T14:17:11.103211-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Settlement Conference AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-17T14:17:11.080908-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-17T14:17:11.080921-07:00","date_filed":"2024-04-17","time_filed":"14:09:48","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/384392367/","id":384392367,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/392599739/","id":392599739,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-04-11T14:24:04.546151-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-11T14:24:04.550320-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Settlement Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-11T14:24:04.534660-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-11T14:24:04.534674-07:00","date_filed":"2024-04-11","time_filed":"14:18:42","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/383258015/","id":383258015,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/391162549/","id":391162549,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/37/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-04-04T14:25:56.701699-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T21:31:02.079354-08:00","sha1":"f454b8dc48a42d25115d9b390e74e6775b53a6df","page_count":11,"file_size":156289,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 11\n\n\n 1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)\n Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)\n 2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN\n 3 1010 F Street, Suite 300\n Sacramento, California 95814\n 4 Telephone: (916) 443-6911\n Facsimile: (916) 447-8336\n 5 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com\n paul@markmerin.com\n 6\n\n 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff\n MANUEL BENCOMO\n 8\n\n 9\n A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION\n10\n Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494\n11 cfessenden@porterscott.com\n Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383\n12 smastorakos@porterscott.com\n 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500\n13 Sacramento, California 95815\n14 TEL: 916.929.1481\n FAX: 916.927.3706\n15\n Attorneys for Defendants\n16 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,\n SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF\u2019S\n17 DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES, and\n18 MATHEW MORENO\n\n19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n20 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n21 SACRAMENTO DIVISION\n\n22 MANUEL BENCOMO, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\n23 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n RE: PERSONNEL FILES;\n24 vs.\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n25 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,\n\n26 Defendants.\n\n27\n\n28\n 1\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 2 of 11\n\n\n 1 STIPULATION\n\n 2 A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION\n\n 3 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described\n\n 4 in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from\n\n 5 public disclosure would be warranted. Plaintiff has not been permitted to view the materials described in\n\n 6 this stipulated protective order. The parties acknowledge that this protective order does not confer\n\n 7 blanket protections on all disclosures or discovery activity, and that the protection it affords extends only\n\n 8 to the limited information or items that are entitled to such protection under Federal Rule of Civil\n\n 9 Procedure 26(c). The parties further acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does not entitle any\n\n10 party to file information designated as protected or confidential under seal, where Local Rule 141 sets\n\n11 forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party\n\n12 seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal.\n\n13 B. DEFINITIONS\n\n14 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order:\n\n15 1. The \u201cAction\u201d shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or\n\n16 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action\n\n17 consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment.\n\n18 2. \u201cDocuments\u201d or \u201cConfidential Documents\u201d shall mean the documents that Defendants\n\n19 designate as \u201cConfidential\u201d and described in section C.\n20 3. \u201cConfidential\u201d shall mean information designated \u201cConfidential\u201d pursuant to this\n\n21 stipulated protective order. Information designated \u201cConfidential\u201d shall be information that is determined\n\n22 in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection pursuant to\n\n23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information shall be\n\n24 used solely for purposes of litigation. Confidential information shall not be used by the non-designating\n\n25 party for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all parties to this action or as\n\n26 authorized by further order of the Court.\n27 4. \u201cDefendants\u201d shall mean the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO\n\n28 COUNTY SHERIFF\u2019S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES, and MATHEW MORENO.\n 2\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 3 of 11\n\n\n 1 5. \u201cPlaintiff\u201d shall mean MANUEL BENCOMO.\n\n 2 6. \u201cParties\u201d shall mean Plaintiff and Defendants, identified above.\n\n 3 C. INFORMATION COVERED\n\n 4 Covered Information:\n\n 5 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under\n\n 6 this stipulated protective order is limited to the following:\n\n 7 1. Personnel Files of Mathew Moreno:\n\n 8 i. Employment Records\n\n 9 1. Mathew Moreno Deputy Sheriff Appointment (DEF 02085)\n 2. Department Seniority Determination Worksheet (DEF 02086)\n10\n 3. New Employee Masterfile New Hire (DEF 02383)\n11\n 4. Class/Status Change Masterfile Promotion (DEF 02087)\n12\n 5. Notice of Appointment/Termination (DEF 02088)\n13 6. Email authorizing Dep. Moreno to receive K9 stipend (DEF 02089)\n14 7. Employment Uniform Expense Documents (DEF 02094 \u2013 02100, 02363 \u2013\n15 02366)\n\n16 8. Sac County Employees\u2019 Retirement System Correspondence (DEF 02106 -\n 02109\n17\n 9. DMV Request for Confidentiality of Home Address (DEF 02115)\n18\n 10. Subpoena Assignment Receipts (DEF 02125, 02174, 02178, 02182, 02190,\n19 02194, 02196, 02221, 02236 \u2013 02237, 02245, 02266, 02268 \u2013 02269,\n20 02285 \u2013 02286, 02319, 02322, 02329, 02358, 02370, 02372, 02376, 02380,\n21 02398, 02404, 02429)\n\n22 11. Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Employee Feedback Forms (DEF\n 02137, 02154, 02391)\n23\n 12. Division Losing/Gaining Employee w/ Personnel Orders (DEF 02166 \u2013\n24\n 02170, 02416 - 02417)\n25 13. SCSD Employee Status/History \u2013 Notices of Address Change (DEF 02195,\n26 02296, 02308, 02328, 02331)\n27 14. SCSD Employee Status/History \u2013 New Employee (DEF 02292)\n\n28 15. SCSD Pre-Employment Releases and Waivers (DEF 02210, 02289)\n 3\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 4 of 11\n\n\n 1 16. SCSD Inter-Department Correspondence RE Field Training Officer\n\n 2 Appointment and Incentive Pay (DEF 02279)\n 17. Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verifications (DEF 02309, 02340)\n 3\n 18. Non-Sworn Hiring Clearance Form (DEF 02334)\n 4\n 19. County of Sacramento Employment Statement Signed (DEF 02335)\n 5\n 20. County of Sacramento Last Warrant Designee (DEF 02336)\n 6 21. SCSD Section 15630 Welfare and Institutions Code Agreement Signed\n 7 (DEF 02338)\n 8 22. Employee Self-Identification Questionnaire (DEF 02339)\n\n 9 23. SCSD Use of Criminal Justice Information Compliance Agreement Signed\n (DEF 02341 \u2013 02342)\n10\n 24. SCSD Work Schedule/Supervisor Change Requests (DEF 02378, 02409)\n11\n ii. Employee Time and Attendance Management\n12 1. Absence Requests (DEF 02079, 02083 \u2013 02084, 02093, 02104, 02110 \u2013\n13 02112, 02114, 02118 \u2013 02119, 02122 \u2013 02123, 02126, 02128, 02143,\n14 02148 \u2013 02150, 02164 \u2013 02165, 02171, 02179 \u2013 02180, 02185, 02187,\n\n15 02191 \u2013 021921, 2197, 02199 \u2013 02200, 02202, 02207, 02209, 02211,\n 02217 \u2013 02219, 02223, 02226 \u2013 02227, 02230, 02234, 02244, 02255,\n16\n 02260, 02263, 02270, 02274 \u2013 02276, 02278, 02283, 02288, 02290, 02295,\n17\n 02305 \u2013 02306, 02313 \u2013 02314, 02325, 02327, 02330, 02343 \u2013 02344,\n18 02346, 02349, 02353 \u2013 02354, 02359, 02373, 02375, 02379, 02381 \u2013\n19 02382, 02394, 02410, 02418, 02427, 02433 \u2013 02435, 02438 \u2013 02439)\n20 2. Employee Time Sheet Correction Forms (DEF 02090, 02172, 02176,\n\n21 02184, 02186, 02188, 02201, 02203, 02205, 02208, 02220, 02228, 02235,\n 02246, 02273, 02281, 02315, 02320, 02324, 02357, 02367, 02374, 02403,\n22\n 02431, 02437)\n23\n 3. Records of Overtime Worked (DEF 02091 \u2013 02092, 02105, 02113, 02116\n24\n \u2013 02117, 02120 \u2013 02121, 02129 \u2013 02131, 02138 \u2013 02139, 02141 \u2013 02142,\n25 02145, 02147, 02152, 02162 \u2013 02163, 02173, 02177, 02181, 02183, 02189,\n26 02193, 02198, 02204, 02206, 02222, 02224, 02229, 02231 \u2013 02233, 02238\n27 \u2013 02243, 02247, 02256 \u2013 02259, 02261 \u2013 02262, 02264 \u2013 02265, 02282,\n 02284, 02287, 02293 \u2013 02294, 02302 \u2013 02304, 02311 \u2013 02312, 02316 \u2013\n28\n 4\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 5 of 11\n\n\n 1 02318, 02321, 02323, 02326, 02345, 02347 \u2013 02348, 02351 \u2013 02352,\n\n 2 02355 \u2013 02356, 02361 \u2013 02362, 02368 \u2013 02369, 02371, 02377, 02389 \u2013\n 02390, 02393, 02395, 02397, 02399 \u2013 02400, 02405 \u2013 02407, 02420 \u2013\n 3\n 02425, 02428, 02432)\n 4\n 4. Cross Application Timesheets (DEF 02080 \u2013 02082, 02127, 02151, 02153,\n 5\n 02175, 02225, 02267, 02272, 02277, 02280, 02291, 02307, 02350, 02360,\n 6 02396, 02401 \u2013 02402)\n 7 5. Request for Parental Leave (DEF 02101 \u2013 02103)\n 8 iii. Payroll/Wages\n\n 9 1. Fax to Sac County from Vendor Services RE Verification of Mathew\n Moreno Employment & Salary (DEF 02297)\n10\n 2. Request for Verification of Employment (DEF 02298 \u2013 02299)\n11\n 3. Authorization to Obtain and Release Credit Information (DEF 02300)\n12 4. County of Sacramento Payroll History Information (03/2015) (DEF 02301)\n13 5. EDD Employee\u2019s Withholding Allowance Certificate (DEF 02384 \u2013\n14 02385)\n\n15 6. County of Sacramento Direct Deposit Enrollment Authorization (DEF\n 02386)\n16\n 7. SCSD Incentive Pay Applications (DEF 02248, 02387)\n17\n 8. SCSD Incentive Pay Request for Rep Units 003 & 029 (DEF 02392)\n18 9. County of Sacramento Inter-Department Correspondence RE Part-Time\n19 Training Officer Pay (DEF 02426)\n20 iv. Evaluations/Awards\n\n21 1. Performance Evaluation Reports (DEF 02132 \u2013 02136, 02156 \u2013 02161,\n 02212 \u2013 02216, 02411 \u2013 02415)\n22\n 2. SSD Inter-Departmental Correspondence Letter RE Awarding Major\n23\n Incident Ribbon, Dep. Robert French (DEF 02140)\n24\n 3. Bronze Star of Bravery Certificate (DEF 02144)\n25 4. SSD Inter-Departmental Correspondence Letter RE Awarding Major\n26 Incident Ribbon, Tara O\u2019Sullivan (DEF 2271)\n27 v. Education\n 1. Sacramento State BS Criminal Justice Certificate (DEF 02251, 02388)\n28\n 5\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 6 of 11\n\n\n 1 2. Sacramento State Transcript (DEF 02252 \u2013 02253)\n\n 2 3. Sierra College Transcript (DEF 02254)\n\n 3 Particularized Need for Protection:\n 4 Pursuant to Local Rule141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, particularized\n 5 need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. Defendants\n 6 represented to the Court and Plaintiff that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated\n 7 protective order are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of\n 8 Civil Procedure 26(c), and does not include information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis.\n 9 See, e.g., In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011).\n10 Showing of Need for a Protective Order:\n11 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order is for\n12 the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of\n13 resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n14 26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the parties and the Court from conducting\n15 the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection, in favor of a procedure\n16 whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants\u2019 good faith representations of the need\n17 for protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986) (\u201c[T]he\n18 burden of justifying the confidentiality of each and every document sought to be covered by a protective\n19 order remains on the party seeking the protective order; any other conclusion would turn Rule 26(c) on\n20 its head.\u201d). As a result, production may be made with this stipulated protective order in place and, if\n21 necessary, it will permit discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for protection.\n22 D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER\n23 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as \u201cConfidential\u201d and produced\n24 subject to this stipulated protective order:\n25 1. The Confidential documents shall be used solely in connection with the above-captioned\n26 civil case, and in the preparation and trial of the case. The parties do not waive any objections to the\n27 admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial.\n28 2. The parties will designate the Confidential documents as confidential by affixing a mark\n 6\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 7 of 11\n\n\n 1 labelling them \u201cConfidential.\u201d\n\n 2 3. The Confidential documents may only be disclosed to the following persons:\n\n 3 a. Plaintiff, Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of the Law Office of Mark E.\n\n 4 Merin, and any partners and associates in that office;\n\n 5 b. Defendants, Carl L. Fessenden and Suli A. Mastorakos of Porter Scott, and any\n\n 6 partners and associates in that office;\n\n 7 c. Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel or support staff regularly employed by\n\n 8 counsel referred to in subparts (a) and (b) immediately above, including stenographic deposition\n\n 9 reporters or videographers retained in connection with this action;\n\n10 d. Court personnel, including stenographic reporters or videographers engaged in\n\n11 proceedings as are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial in the civil action;\n\n12 e. Any expert, consultant, or investigator retained in connection with this action;\n\n13 however, such persons must be advised of and abide by this protective order;\n\n14 f. The finder of facts at the time of trial, subject to the court\u2019s rulings on in limine\n\n15 motions and objections of counsel; and\n\n16 g. Witnesses during their depositions in this action. If confidential documents are\n\n17 used in the deposition, the documents must be identified as \u201cConfidential\u201d and the portion of the\n\n18 deposition in which the documents are described should also be considered confidential.\n\n19 4. Information covered by this stipulated protective order does not automatically entitle the\n20 parties to file such information or documents with the Court under seal. Any request to seal documents is\n\n21 governed by Local Rule 141. If the Confidential documents are filed with any motion or other pleading, a\n\n22 party may seek permission from the Court to file the Confidential Documents under seal according to\n\n23 Local Rule 141. If permission is granted, the Confidential documents will be filed and served in\n\n24 accordance with Local Rule 141.\n\n25 5. The designation of the Confidential documents as \u201cConfidential\u201d and the subsequent\n\n26 production thereof is without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose the admissibility of the\n27 Confidential documents or information contained therein.\n\n28 6. Any party or non-party may challenge a Confidential designation at any time. A party or\n 7\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 8 of 11\n\n\n 1 non-party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a\n\n 2 challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed. The challenging party shall initiate the\n\n 3 dispute resolution process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and\n\n 4 describing the basis for each challenge. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith\n\n 5 and must begin the process by conferring directly (in person or voice-to-voice dialogue; other forms of\n\n 6 communication are not sufficient) within seven (7) days of the date of service of notice. In conferring, the\n\n 7 challenging party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality designation was not proper\n\n 8 and must give the designating party an opportunity to review the designated material, to reconsider the\n\n 9 circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, to explain the basis for the chosen designation.\n\n10 A challenging party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this\n\n11 meet and confer process first or establishes that the designating party is unwilling to participate in the\n\n12 meet and confer process in a timely manner. If the parties cannot resolve a challenge without Court\n\n13 intervention, the designating party shall file and serve a motion for protective order/to retain\n\n14 confidentiality pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 251 within twenty-one\n\n15 (21) days of the initial notice of challenge or within seven (7) days of the parties agreeing that the meet\n\n16 and confer process will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by the designating party to\n\n17 make such a motion within twenty-one (21) days (or seven (7) days, if applicable) shall automatically\n\n18 waive the \u201cConfidential\u201d designation for each challenged designation. In addition, the challenging party\n\n19 may file a motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing\n20 so. The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the designating party,\n\n21 consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Unless the designating party has waived the\n\n22 confidentiality designation by failing to file a motion for protective order/to retain confidentiality as\n\n23 described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to\n\n24 which it is entitled under the designating party\u2019s designation until the Court rules on the challenge.\n\n25 7. Should the Confidential documents or any information contained therein be disclosed,\n\n26 through inadvertence or otherwise, to any person not authorized to receive it under this stipulated\n27 protective order, the disclosing person(s) shall promptly (a) inform counsel for the Defendants of the\n\n28 recipient(s) and the circumstances of the unauthorized disclosure to the relevant producing person(s) and\n 8\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 9 of 11\n\n\n 1 (b) use best efforts to bind the recipient(s) to the terms of this stipulated protective order.\n\n 2 8. The Confidential documents shall not lose its confidential status because it was\n\n 3 inadvertently or unintentionally disclosed to a person not authorized to receive it under this stipulated\n\n 4 protective order.\n\n 5 9. The protections conferred by this stipulated protective order cover the information defined\n\n 6 above, as well as any information copied from the materials. However, the protections conferred by this\n\n 7 stipulated protective order do not cover: (A) any information that is in the public domain at the time of\n\n 8 disclosure or which subsequently becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure, including\n\n 9 becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (B) any information known prior to the\n\n10 disclosure or obtained after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and\n\n11 under no obligation of confidentiality.\n\n12 10. After the conclusion of this litigation, the Confidential documents will remain\n\n13 confidential. \u201cConclusion\u201d of this litigation means a termination of the case following a trial, settlement,\n\n14 or dismissal of the action with prejudice for any other reason.\n\n15 11. This stipulated protective order shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to\n\n16 be binding on all parties and affected persons until this litigation terminates, subject to any subsequent\n\n17 modifications of this stipulated protective order for good cause shown by this Court or any Court having\n\n18 jurisdiction over an appeal of this action. Upon termination of this litigation, the parties agree the\n\n19 stipulated protective order shall continue in force as a private agreement between the parties.\n20 12. The parties may request additional records to be subject to this stipulated protective order.\n\n21 If a party believes a document to be produced should be subject to this stipulated protective order, the\n\n22 parties must meet and confer. If there is agreement, the parties shall submit an amendment to this\n\n23 stipulated protective order to identify the additional documents. If the parties cannot agree, the party\n\n24 seeking protection shall file a motion for protective order pursuant to the terms of Local Rule 251.\n\n25 13. During the pendency of this lawsuit, the Court may (a) make such amendments,\n\n26 modifications, and/or additions to this stipulated protective order as deemed appropriate upon good cause\n27 shown; and (b) adjudicate any dispute arising under it.\n\n28 ///\n 9\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 10 of 11\n\n\n 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED.\n\n 2 Dated: March 22, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,\n LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN\n 3\n /s/Paul H. Masuhara\n 4 (Authorized on 3/21/24)\n By: __________________________________\n 5\n Mark E. Merin\n 6 Paul H. Masuhara\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n 7\n MANUEL BENCOMO\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10 Dated: Mach 22, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n11\n\n12 /s/ Suli A. Mastorakos\n\n13 By: __________________________________\n Carl L. Fessenden\n14 Suli A. Mastorakos\n15 Attorneys for Defendants\n COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,\n16 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF\u2019S\n DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES, and\n17 MATHEW MORENO\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n 10\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 37 Filed 04/04/24 Page 11 of 11\n\n\n 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n 2 The parties\u2019 stipulated protective order is GRANTED.\n\n 3\n\n 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n 5\n\n 6 Dated: April 4, 2024\n JEREMY D. PETERSON\n 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n 11\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES\n31 Manuel Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-0440-DAD-JDP\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-04-05T01:37:10.262281-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014351489","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-04-04T14:25:56.682383-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T21:31:02.067173-08:00","date_filed":"2024-04-04","time_filed":"13:33:57","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-04-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":118,"description":"PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 4/4/2024. (Clemente Licea, O)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/381470559/","id":381470559,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389267089/","id":389267089,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-03-18T14:06:51.118587-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-18T14:06:51.124081-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Minute Order AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND ~Util - 1 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-18T14:06:51.106053-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-18T14:06:51.106072-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-18","time_filed":"13:42:43","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/380491381/","id":380491381,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/388262778/","id":388262778,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/33/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-03-07T10:01:15.485330-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T20:12:59.396608-08:00","sha1":"4ec284085f23d5217ab74b18db76179f089570ce","page_count":4,"file_size":144889,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 33 Filed 03/07/24 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n 1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)\n Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)\n 2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN\n 3 1010 F Street, Suite 300\n Sacramento, California 95814\n 4 Telephone: (916) 443-6911\n Facsimile: (916) 447-8336\n 5 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com\n paul@markmerin.com\n 6\n\n 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff\n MANUEL BENCOMO\n 8\n\n 9 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION\n Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494\n10\n Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383\n11 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500\n Sacramento, CA 95815\n12 TEL: 916.929.1481\n FAX: 916.927.3706\n13 cfessenden@porterscott.com\n14 smastorakos@porterscott.com\n\n15 Attorneys for Defendants\n COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,\n16 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF\u2019S\n DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES,\n17 and MATHEW MORENO\n18\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n19\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n20\n SACRAMENTO DIVISION\n21\n MANUEL BENCOMO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP\n22\n Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n23\n RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION;\n vs.\n24 [PROPOSED] ORDER\n COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO\n25 COUNTY SHERIFF\u2019S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT\n JONES, and MATHEW MORENO,\n26\n Defendants.\n27\n\n28\n 1\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION\n31 Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 33 Filed 03/07/24 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n 1 STIPULATION\n\n 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Local Rule 141.1, and 45 C.F.R. \u00a7\n\n 3 164.512(e)(1)(v), the parties stipulate to the entry of a qualified protective order as follows:\n\n 4 1. The parties and their attorneys are authorized to receive, subpoena, and transmit\n\n 5 \u201cprotected health information\u201d pertaining to Manuel Bencomo, including that which is contained in the\n\n 6 records of the County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Adult Correctional Health, and/or U.C. Davis\n\n 7 Health, to the extent and subject to the conditions outlined herein.\n\n 8 2. For the purposes of this qualified protective order, \u201cprotected health information\u201d shall\n\n 9 have the same scope and definition as set forth in 45 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 160.103, 164.501. Protected health\n\n10 information includes, but is not limited to, health information, including demographic information,\n\n11 relating to either: (a) the past, present, or future physical or mental condition of an individual; (b) the\n\n12 provision of care to an individual; or (c) the payment for care provided to an individual, which identifies\n\n13 the individual or which reasonably could be expected to identify the individual.\n\n14 3. All \u201ccovered entities\u201d (as defined by 45 C.F.R. \u00a7 160.103) are hereby authorized to\n\n15 disclose protected health information to attorneys representing any parties in the above-captioned matter,\n\n16 including Plaintiffs Manuel Bencomo and Defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County\n\n17 Sheriff\u2019s Department, Scott Jones, and Mathew Moreno.\n\n18 4. The parties and their attorneys shall be permitted to use or disclose the protected health\n\n19 information for purposes of prosecuting or defending this action including any appeals of this case. This\n20 includes, but is not necessarily limited to, disclosure to their attorneys, experts, consultants, court\n\n21 personnel, court reporters, copy services, trial consultants, and other entities or persons involved in the\n\n22 litigation process. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit counsel in this matter from\n\n23 sharing information as permitted by law.\n\n24 5. Prior to disclosing protected health information to persons involved in this litigation,\n\n25 counsel shall inform each such person that the protected health information may not be used or disclosed\n\n26 for any purpose other than this litigation. Counsel shall take all other reasonable steps to ensure that\n27 persons receiving the protected health information do not use or disclose such information for any\n\n28 purpose other than this litigation.\n 2\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION\n31 Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 33 Filed 03/07/24 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n 1 6. Within 45 days after the conclusion of the litigation including appeals, the parties, their\n\n 2 attorneys, and any person or entity in possession of protected health information received from counsel\n\n 3 pursuant to paragraph four of this Order, shall return the protected health information to the covered\n\n 4 entity or destroy any and all copies of protected health information, except that counsel are not required\n\n 5 to secure the return or destruction of protected health information submitted to the court.\n\n 6 7. This Order does not authorize either party to seal court filings or court proceedings. A\n\n 7 party may seek permission from the Court to file protected health information under seal pursuant to\n\n 8 Local Rule 141.\n\n 9 IT IS SO STIPULATED.\n\n10 Dated: February 21, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,\n LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN\n11\n\n12 /s/ Paul H. Masuhara\n (as authorized on February 21, 2024)\n13 By: __________________________________\n Mark E. Merin\n14 Paul H. Masuhara\n15 Attorneys for Plaintiff\n MANUEL BENCOMO\n16\n\n17 Dated: Respectfully Submitted,\n\n18\n\n19 /s/ Suli A. Mastorakos\n\n20 By: __________________________________\n Carl L. Fessenden\n21 Suli A. Mastorakos\n22 Attorneys for Defendants\n COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,\n23 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF\u2019S\n DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES,\n24 and MATHEW MORENO\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n 3\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION\n31 Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 33 Filed 03/07/24 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n 1\n\n 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n 3 The parties\u2019 stipulation is GRANTED.\n\n 4\n\n 5\n\n 6 Date: March 6, 2024\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n 4\n30\n STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION\n31 Bencomo v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-03-08T01:03:58.345478-08:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014288789","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-07T10:01:15.455725-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T20:12:59.387895-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-07","time_filed":"09:11:26","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":103,"description":"STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 03/06/24. (Benson, A.)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/380201739/","id":380201739,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387966143/","id":387966143,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/32/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-03-04T17:27:00.747383-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-04T17:27:00.750887-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014283057","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-04T17:27:00.734375-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-04T17:27:00.736823-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-04","time_filed":"16:47:01","entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":100,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379203249/","id":379203249,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/386916382/","id":386916382,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/30/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-02-22T18:29:22.944062-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-22T18:29:22.951743-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014263424","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-22T18:29:22.910179-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-22T18:29:22.918150-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-22","time_filed":"18:13:13","entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":95,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379195522/","id":379195522,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/386908561/","id":386908561,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/29/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-02-22T16:27:02.128699-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-22T16:27:02.136021-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014263078","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-22T16:27:02.093605-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-22T16:27:02.100494-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-22","time_filed":"15:44:48","entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":92,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/378103841/","id":378103841,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/385766905/","id":385766905,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/28/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-02-09T15:47:34.443829-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-09T15:47:34.449333-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014241771","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-09T15:47:34.428011-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-09T15:47:34.431720-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-09","time_filed":"15:31:02","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":90,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/377984716/","id":377984716,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/385645420/","id":385645420,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/27/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-02-08T15:47:09.416664-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-08T15:47:09.420561-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014238966","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-08T15:47:09.399816-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-08T15:47:09.402954-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-08","time_filed":"15:13:41","entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":87,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/377275745/","id":377275745,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/66977699/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/384921386/","id":384921386,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/66977699/26/bencomo-v-county-of-sacramento/","date_created":"2024-02-01T10:26:25.021467-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T18:41:17.106929-08:00","sha1":"0543f7ade97180d271563f5d3724f071a0f7a2da","page_count":8,"file_size":145791,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.26.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.425085/gov.uscourts.caed.425085.26.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4\n\n 5\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n10\n\n11 MANUEL BENCOMO, No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP\n12 Plaintiff,\n13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF\u2019S MOTION\n FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED\n14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., COMPLAINT AND DENYING\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO\n15 Defendants. DISMISS/STRIKE AS MOOT\n16 (Doc. Nos. 9, 22)\n17\n\n18 This matter is before the court on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss/strike plaintiff\u2019s\n\n19 complaint brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f), (Doc. No. 9),\n\n20 as well as plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (\u201cFAC\u201d) brought pursuant\n\n21 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), (Doc. No. 22). Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss/strike\n\n22 and plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to amend were taken under submission without oral argument\n\n23 pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) on June 2, 2023 and January 8, 2024, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 12,\n\n24 23.) For the reasons explained below, plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file a FAC will be granted\n\n25 and defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss/strike will be denied as moot.\n\n26 BACKGROUND\n\n27 On March 9, 2023, plaintiff Manuel Bencomo filed a complaint initiating this civil rights\n\n28 action against defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff\u2019s Department, and\n 1\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 2 of 8\n\n\n 1 Scott Jones. (Doc. No. 1.) This case arises from the alleged use of excessive force against\n\n 2 plaintiff caused by a police canine utilized by sheriff\u2019s deputies on January 8, 2023. (Id.) On\n\n 3 May 8, 2023, defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss/strike. (Doc. No. 9.) On May 16,\n\n 4 2023, plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion, and defendants filed a reply thereto on May 25,\n\n 5 2023. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.)\n\n 6 On December 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson issued the pretrial\n\n 7 scheduling order governing this case and setting forth the following deadlines: a deadline to file\n\n 8 any motion for leave to amend or add or join additional parties of December 27, 2023; the close\n\n 9 of fact discovery by December 6, 2024; the close of expert discovery by April 7, 2025; and a last\n\n10 day for filing of dispositive motions deadline of May 22, 2025. (Doc. No. 20. at 2\u20134.)\n\n11 Plaintiff filed the pending motion for leave to amend on December 27, 2023. (Doc. No.\n\n12 22.) On January 10, 2024, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to amend,\n\n13 and on January 19, 2024, plaintiff filed a reply thereto. (Doc. Nos. 24, 25.)\n\n14 LEGAL STANDARD\n\n15 Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings when\n\n16 the deadline for amendments in the pretrial scheduling order had yet to pass at the time the\n\n17 motion for leave to amend was filed, as is the case here. Cf. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232\n\n18 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (\u201cGenerally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally\n\n19 allows for amendments to pleadings. In this case, however, the district court correctly found that\n\n20 it should address the issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 because it had filed a pretrial\n21 scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings, and the deadline had\n\n22 expired before [the plaintiffs] moved to amend.\u201d). Rule 15 provides that a complaint may be\n\n23 amended once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it or 21 days after service of a\n\n24 responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Rule 15 further provides that \u201c[i]n all other cases,\n\n25 a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party\u2019s written consent or the court\u2019s\n\n26 leave. The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).\n27 Generally, courts apply Rule 15(a) with \u201cextreme liberality.\u201d Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon,\n\n28 Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003); see also DCD Programs Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d\n 2\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 3 of 8\n\n\n 1 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (\u201c[R]ule 15\u2019s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be\n\n 2 applied with extreme liberality.\u201d) (citations and quotations omitted).\n\n 3 In determining whether to grant leave to amend, courts consider several factors identified\n\n 4 by the Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). These factors, known as the\n\n 5 Foman factors, include (1) bad faith on the part of the movant; (2) undue delay or dilatory motive\n\n 6 on the part of the movant; (3) repeated failure on the part of the movant to cure deficiencies by\n\n 7 amendments previously allowed; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance\n\n 8 of the amendment; and (5) futility of the amendment. Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052; see also\n\n 9 Griggs v. Pace. Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999) (\u201cGenerally, this determination\n\n10 should be performed with all inferences in favor of granting the motion.\u201d).\n\n11 \u201cNot all of the factors merit equal weight. As this circuit and others have held, it is the\n\n12 consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.\u201d Eminence Cap.,\n\n13 316 F.3d at 1052. \u201cAbsent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors,\n\n14 there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.\u201d Id.\n\n15 ANALYSIS\n\n16 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to redesignate a previously unknown \u201cDoe\u201d\n\n17 defendant as Deputy Mathew Moreno. (See Doc. Nos. 22-1 at 2; 22-2 at 4.) In addition, plaintiff\n\n18 seeks leave to amend to add allegations relating to municipal and supervisory liability, including\n\n19 incidents of misconduct by other Sacramento County Sheriff\u2019s Department officers where\n\n20 inadequate discipline was imposed. (Doc. No. 22-1 at 2; see generally, Doc. No. 22-2 at 4\u201341.)\n21 Defendants do not oppose plaintiff adding Deputy Moreno as a party to this action. (Doc. No. 24\n\n22 at 5 n.1.) However, defendants otherwise oppose the granting of leave to file a FAC based on two\n\n23 Foman factors: (1) futility of the amendment, and (2) undue prejudice to the opposing party.\n\n24 (Doc. No. 24 at 13\u201320.) The court will analyze each factor in turn.\n\n25 1. Futility\n\n26 Defendants argue that amendment would be futile because \u201cplaintiff\u2019s allegations\n27 contained in paragraph 87, including subparagraphs, fail to state a cognizable underlying\n\n28 constitutional injury.\u201d (Doc. No. 24 at 14\u201315.) In paragraph 87 of the proposed FAC, plaintiff\n 3\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 4 of 8\n\n\n 1 alleges that defendants County of Sacramento, the Sacramento County Sheriff\u2019s Department,\n\n 2 and/or Scott Jones \u201conly impose minimal, insignificant, and untimely discipline against\n\n 3 subordinates even when misconduct was documented and acknowledged, and only issue\n\n 4 discipline when misconduct is documented on recordings.\u201d (Doc. No. 22-2 at 22.) The\n\n 5 subparagraphs allege various incidents of officer misconduct occurring from 2013 to 2023 as well\n\n 6 as the alleged discipline imposed. (See id. at 22\u201330.) Defendants contend that the allegations in\n\n 7 paragraph 87 are immaterial to plaintiff\u2019s claims because they do not \u201cinvolve the deployment of\n\n 8 a canine,\u201d (id. at 15); \u201cdo[] not allege that Deputy Moreno, whom plaintiff seeks to name in this\n\n 9 lawsuit, is aware of the other events and instances . . . identified,\u201d (id.); \u201cpertain[] to officers\n\n10 uninvolved in the event concerning Plaintiff,\u201d (id. at 16); do not \u201cbear[] sufficient resemblance to\n\n11 the fact pattern at issue here,\u201d (id. at 17); and are only \u201csporadic events,\u201d not \u201cwidespread and\n\n12 permanent,\u201d (id. at 19).\n\n13 \u201c[A]n amendment is \u2018futile\u2019 only if it would clearly be subject to dismissal.\u201d SAES\n\n14 Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (citing DCD\n\n15 Programs, 83 F.2d at 188). Although \u201ccourts will determine the legal sufficiency of a proposed\n\n16 amendment using the same standard as applied on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, such issues are often\n\n17 more appropriately raised in a motion to dismiss rather than in an opposition to a motion for leave\n\n18 to amend.\u201d Id. (internal citation omitted); see also LifeVoxel Va. SPV, LLC v. LifeVoxel.AI, Inc.,\n\n19 No. 22-cv-01917-GPC, 2023 WL 3729397, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2023) (\u201cCourts generally do\n\n20 not consider the validity of a proposed amended pleading in deciding whether to grant leave to\n21 amend, instead deferring consideration of challenges to the merits after leave to amend is granted\n\n22 and the amended pleadings are filed.\u201d); Clarke v. Upton, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1043 (E.D. Cal.\n\n23 2010) (\u201c[D]enial [of a motion to amend] on this ground is rare and courts generally defer\n\n24 consideration of challenges to the merits of a proposed amended pleading until after leave to\n\n25 amend is granted and the amended pleading is filed.\u201d).\n\n26 Here, as plaintiff notes in his reply (Doc. No. 25 at 8), general evidence of departmental\n27 treatment of complaints can \u201csupport[ ] the [plaintiff\u2019s] theory that . . . disciplinary and complaint\n\n28 processes . . . contributed to the police excesses complained of because the procedures made clear\n 4\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 5 of 8\n\n\n 1 to officers that . . . they could get away with anything,\u201d Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d\n\n 2 630, 647 (9th Cir. 1991).\n\n 3 The court concludes that plaintiff\u2019s allegations in paragraph 87 and its subparagraphs of\n\n 4 the proposed FAC are not \u201cclearly . . . subject to dismissal.\u201d SAES, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 1086.\n\n 5 Furthermore, defendants\u2019 arguments regarding the sufficiency of the proposed FAC, even if\n\n 6 ultimately meritorious, would be better addressed in a motion to dismiss the FAC. See id.\n\n 7 Accordingly, consideration of this factor weighs in favor of granting plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave\n\n 8 to amend.\n\n 9 2. Undue Prejudice\n\n10 Of the Foman factors, undue prejudice is the \u201ctouchstone of the inquiry\u201d and \u201ccarries the\n\n11 greatest weight.\u201d Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052. \u201cThe party opposing amendment bears the\n\n12 burden of showing prejudice.\u201d DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187.\n\n13 Defendants contend that the allegations in paragraph 87, along with its subparagraphs, \u201cdo\n\n14 not involve facts bearing sufficient resemblance to the fact pattern at issue here to be pertinent,\n\n15 nor show an essential or important relationship between the two bearing on the subject matter of\n\n16 the litigation\u201d and that granting plaintiff leave to amend to include these allegations would cause\n\n17 significant prejudice to defendants by creating \u201cburdensome and unnecessary discovery\u201d which\n\n18 could \u201cpossibly lead to eventual mini trials about the merits of those events and the discipline\n\n19 imposed.\u201d (Doc. No. 24 at 19.) This argument is unavailing. Again, defendants can address\n\n20 these concerns through a future motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s FAC. See Baker v. Trans Union\n21 LLC, No. 07-cv-08032-PCT-JAT, 2008 WL 2329099, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2008) (rejecting the\n\n22 defendant\u2019s argument that granting leave to amend the complaint would cause prejudice by\n\n23 expanding the scope of discovery, noting \u201cgranting leave to amend does not preclude Defendant\n\n24 from filing a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss\u201d). Furthermore, defendants have not adequately\n\n25 demonstrated that the scope of discovery will be expanded to an extent that unduly burdens them\n\n26 or prevents them from completing fact discovery by the December 6, 2024 deadline established\n27 by the scheduling order in this case. See id. (\u201cDefendant has not shown that the scope of\n\n28 /////\n 5\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 6 of 8\n\n\n 1 discovery will be so expanded as to be unduly onerous to Defendant, nor that Defendant can not\n\n 2 [sic] complete discovery by the October 24, 2008 deadline.\u201d).\n\n 3 The court acknowledges that allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint would moot\n\n 4 defendants\u2019 pending motion to dismiss/strike. However, \u201cThat an amended complaint would\n\n 5 essentially moot Defendants\u2019 pending Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike simply does not\n\n 6 constitute undue prejudice.\u201d Cuevas v. City of Campbell, No. 5:12-cv-03087-EJD, 2012 WL\n\n 7 5077153, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2012) (rejecting the defendant\u2019s argument that \u201ca grant of\n\n 8 leave to amend would unduly prejudice them by denying them a ruling on their Motion to\n\n 9 Dismiss/Strike regarding the original complaint\u201d) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n10 Furthermore, defendants argue that certain allegations in subparagraphs 87(o), (p), and (t)\n\n11 of the proposed FAC are improper because \u201c[t]he information is derived from confidential\n\n12 discipline records produced pursuant to a Protective Order in the pending [Estate of Sherrano\n\n13 Stingley v. County of Sacramento, 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.) (\u201cEstate of Stingley\u201d)]\n\n14 matter, as well as subject to a pending motion in the same case for an Order deeming the\n\n15 discipline records covered under the Protective Order, or in the alternative, motion to amend the\n\n16 Protective Order.\u201d (Doc. No. 24 at 20.) Defendants argue that the proposed allegations, by being\n\n17 made public, violate the parties\u2019 protective order in Estate of Stingley. (Id.) However, defendants\n\n18 have not adequately substantiated or clarified which portions of subparagraphs 87(o), (p), and (t)\n\n19 of the proposed FAC are derived from documents produced in Estate of Stingley that are subject\n\n20 to the protective order in that action.1 See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V., No. 12-cv-01521-\n21 1\n In his reply in support of the pending motion for leave to amend, plaintiff argues that the\n22 disciplinary records forming the basis for allegations in subparagraphs 87(o), (p), and (t) of the\n proposed FAC were provided by the defendants in Estate of Stingley with the Bates numbers DEF\n23 01805\u2013DEF 02762 and DEF 03568\u2013DEF 05433. (Doc. No. 25 at 4). When plaintiff filed the\n pending motion for leave to amend, the protective order in Estate of Stingley covered only\n24 documents bearing the Bates numbers DEF 01667\u2013DEF 01748, DEF 01749\u2013DEF 01792, and\n DEF 01577\u2013DEF 01666. Estate of Stingley, Protective Order, Doc. No. 19 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17,\n25 2023) (approving the parties\u2019 stipulated protective order filed as Doc. No. 18). The stipulated\n26 protective order that the court approved stated that \u201c[t]he Confidential documents shall be used\n solely in connection with the above-captioned civil case, and in the preparation and trial of the\n27 case.\u201d Estate of Stingley, Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order, Doc. No. 18 at 4 (E.D. Cal.\n Aug. 14, 2023). On January 17, 2024, the magistrate judge in Estate of Stingley modified the\n28 protective order to include documents bearing the Bates numbers DEF 01805\u201302510. Estate of\n 6\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 7 of 8\n\n\n 1 WHA, 2012 WL 4857806, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2012) (granting leave to amend despite the\n\n 2 defendant\u2019s argument that the proposed allegations relied upon facts obtained from discovery in\n\n 3 violation of protective order because the defendant \u201cfailed to identify which proposed allegations\n\n 4 are made in violation of the stipulated protective order\u201d).\n\n 5 Because the burden is on defendants to demonstrate prejudice, and defendants have not\n\n 6 done so, consideration of this factor also weighs in favor of granting plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave\n\n 7 to amend.\n\n 8 3. Remaining Foman Factors\n\n 9 Defendants do not argue in their opposition that plaintiff has acted in bad faith, with\n\n10 undue delay, or failed to address prior deficiencies. Absent a showing of any Foman factors, \u201cthe\n\n11 leave sought should . . . be \u2018freely given.\u2019\u201d Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052 (citations omitted).\n\n12 Moreover, the court finds that permitting plaintiff\u2019s proposed amendments promotes judicial\n\n13 economy by avoiding a potentially unnecessary decision on a motion to dismiss. Accordingly,\n\n14 the court will grant plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file a FAC, and because the FAC will supersede\n\n15 the complaint, the court will deny as moot defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss/strike. See De Souza v.\n\n16 Dawson Tech., Inc., No. 21-cv-01103-JLS-MSB, 2022 WL 3006045, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 28,\n\n17 2022).\n\n18 CONCLUSION\n\n19 1. Plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc. No. 22) is\n\n20 granted;\n21 /////\n\n22\n Stingley, Order, Doc. No. 42 at 4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024). The plaintiff in that case filed a\n23 motion for reconsideration of that order on January 26, 2024, which is still pending. Estate of\n Stingley, Motion, Doc. No. 43 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2024). In this case, although plaintiff\n24 acknowledges that the disciplinary records underlying plaintiff\u2019s proposed allegations were\n produced in Estate of Stingley as DEF 01805\u2013DEF 02762 and DEF 03568\u2013DEF 05433 (Doc. No.\n25 25 at 4), it remains unclear which parts of subparagraphs 87(o), (p), and (t) of the proposed FAC\n26 are derived from documents bearing the Bates number DEF 01805\u201302510, which the protective\n order in Estate of Stingley as amended now covers. The court\u2019s granting of leave to amend does\n27 not prevent defendants from moving to strike these allegations. However, the court expects the\n parties to meet and confer in good faith to address the potential confidentiality issues posed by\n28 plaintiff\u2019s proposed allegations and to avoid unnecessary motion practice in this case.\n 7\n\f Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 26 Filed 02/01/24 Page 8 of 8\n\n\n 1 2. Within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order, plaintiff shall file the\n\n 2 first amended complaint as a separate docket entry; and\n\n 3 3. Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss/strike (Doc. No. 9) is denied as moot.\n\n 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n 5\n Dated: January 31, 2024\n 6 DALE A. DROZD\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n 8\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-02-02T00:46:34.071903-08:00","document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"033014223951","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND Order on Motion to Amend the Complaint AND Order on Motion to Dismiss AND ~Util - 1 Set/Reset Deadlines and Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-01T10:26:25.007863-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-28T18:41:17.099339-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-01","time_filed":"10:00:41","entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":81,"description":" ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/31/24 GRANTING 22 Motion to Amend the Complaint, DIRECTING Plaintiff to file the first amended complaint within 7 days from the date of this order, and DENYING 9 Motion to Dismiss, as moot. (Licea Chavez, V)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=66977699&page_size=40"}