Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01749/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01749-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DESHAWN CATHEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Currently before 

the court is defendants’ proposed protective order. 

On August 26, 2015, the court held a hearing on motions to compel by both parties, along 

with plaintiff’s self-styled motion to include Frederick “Marc” Cooley in a protective order. ECF 

No. 41. At that hearing, the court explained that it could not grant plaintiff’s protective order 

motion because a protective order was not yet in place. Nevertheless, in light of the sensitive 

discoverable information in this matter, the court agreed that a protective order was warranted. 

Accordingly, in the court’s September 29, 2015, order disposing of the parties’ motions it 

instructed defendants to file a proposed protective order within thirty days. ECF No. 46. The 

court also instructed plaintiff to file his objections, if any, within fourteen days of the filing of the 

proposed protective order. Id. Once that protective order is in place defendants will have thirty 

days to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Id. 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 62 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

On October 28, 2015, defendants filed a proposed protective order and on November 10, 

2015, plaintiff filed his objections. ECF Nos. 48, 49. Plaintiff objects to the proposed protective 

order on a number of grounds. First, plaintiff argues that defendants have not made a showing 

that a protective order is required. As plaintiff correctly points out, the moving party bears the 

burden to show good cause for issuance of a protective order. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002). However, plaintiff ignores the 

court’s August 26, 2015 hearing and the instructions that followed, which explicitly included 

findings that a protective order was appropriate. ECF No. 46 at 11 (“[S]ome of the above 

information is sensitive and private, and accordingly should not be disclosed in the absence of a 

protective order.”). Even if the court had not already made such a finding, it is well-settled that 

official police department records should be subject to a protective order to protect the privacy of 

the officers involved and prevent undue annoyance and embarrassment to the police department. 

See, e.g., Macias v. City of Clovis, No. 1:13-CV-01819-BAM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156106, at 

*17 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015) (M.J. McAuliffe) (noting that courts routinely endorse the use of 

protective orders to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information in § 1983 actions based on 

allegations of excessive force). 

Plaintiff also argues that the proposed protective order should allow him to share 

documents with Mr. Cooley, who has assisted him in the filing of his complaint and the ensuing 

litigation. Defendants, on the other hand, argued both at the court’s August 26, 2015, hearing and 

in their papers that any protective order should not allow plaintiff to share protected documents 

with Mr. Cooley because Mr. Cooley cannot be trusted to keep these documents confidential. Mr. 

Cooley assists a number of other pro se plaintiffs in cases against the City of Vallejo, and 

defendants contend that he is likely to share whatever documents he receives with those plaintiffs. 

In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court finds it is appropriate to allow Mr. Cooley 

access to documents produced subject to the protective order. While Mr. Cooley’s involvement 

in other cases may create a risk of unauthorized disclosure, that risk can be managed by the 

availability of sanctions for violation of the protective order. Accordingly, the court will include 

language in the protective order allowing plaintiff to designate one person with whom he can 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 62 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

share confidential documents, as long as that person agrees to be bound by the protective order 

and subject to this court’s jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement of that order. Both plaintiff 

and Mr. Cooley are advised that if Mr. Cooley were to share confidential documents with even a 

single plaintiff in another case, both he and Mr. Cathey could be subject to monetary sanctions. 

Any violation of the protective order by Mr. Cooley could also result in him being precluded from 

further involvement in this and potentially other cases before this court. The court finds the 

availability of the foregoing sanctions sufficient at this time to ensure the confidentiality of 

protected documents. 

Finally, plaintiff argues that he should not be required to seek the sealing of documents he 

wishes to file with the court which have been deemed confidential pursuant to the protective 

order. The court agrees. Defendants’ proposed protective order includes a provision requiring 

plaintiff to move to seal any protected document that he wishes to file with this court. As plaintiff 

points out, it is not appropriate to require him to move for the sealing of documents that he does 

not believe should be under seal. Accordingly, the court will adopt a provision similar to that 

ordered in Cooley v. Vallejo, 2:12-cv-00591 LKK AC, at ECF No. 54, requiring that any party 

wishing to file confidential discovery documents provide advance notice to all parties. Any party 

wishing the material to be filed under seal can then make the appropriate request. 

For the reasons stated above, and good cause appearing, the court adopts a modified 

version of the defendants’ proposed protective order, as follows: 

1. In order to protect the confidentiality of the records described below, the following 

discovery materials are to be disclosed pursuant to protective order and designated as 

“Confidential Material”: 

Vallejo Police Department Internal Affairs records regarding complaints of nonlethal excessive force, including conduct alleged to have occurred while an 

arrestee was in police custody, investigation thereof and official resolution from 

March 2005 through March 2015. 

2. Confidential Material may not be disclosed except as set forth in paragraphs 3–7. 

3. Prior to the release of Confidential Material, defendants shall redact any birth dates, 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 62 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers and home addresses. 

4. Confidential Material may be disclosed only to the following persons: 

a. Counsel for any party to this action; 

b. Paralegal, stenographic, clerical and secretarial personnel regularly employed 

by counsel referred to in 4(a); 

c. One designee of the pro se plaintiff, if plaintiff deems the disclosure necessary 

to aid plaintiff’s prosecution of the case. No Confidential Material shall be 

disclosed to this designee unless and until (1) the designee completes the 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND that is attached 

to this Protective Order as EXHIBIT A; AND plaintiff files a copy of the 

completed ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND 

with the Court; 

d. Court personnel including stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings 

as are necessarily incidental to preparation for the trial of this action; 

e. Any outside expert or consultant retained in connection with this action and not 

otherwise employed by either party; 

f. Any “in house” expert designated by Defendant to testify at trial in this matter; 

g. Witnesses, other than the Plaintiff herein, who may have the documents 

disclosed to them during deposition proceedings; the witnesses may not leave 

the depositions with copies of the documents, and shall be bound by the 

provisions of paragraph 5; 

h. Any neutral evaluator or other designated ADR provider; 

i. Parties to this action; and 

j. The jury, should this matter go to trial. 

5. Each person to whom disclosure is made, with the exception of counsel who are 

presumed to know of the contents of this protective order, shall, prior to disclosure: 

(1) be provided with a copy of this order by the person furnishing him/her such 

material, and (2) agree on the record or in writing that she/he has read the protective 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 62 Filed 12/09/15 Page 4 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

order and that she/he understand the provisions of the protective order. Such person 

must also consent to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, 

Eastern District, with respect to any proceeding relating to the enforcement of this 

order. Defendants City of Vallejo and the named Defendants herein shall be entitled 

to retain possession of the original writings described above. Nothing in this 

paragraph is intended to prevent officials or employees of the City of Vallejo or other 

authorized government officials or any other persons from having access to the 

documents if they would have had access in the normal course of their job duties or 

rights as a citizen. Further, nothing in this order prevents a witness from disclosing 

events or activities personal to them, i.e., a witness can disclose to others previous 

information given to the City of Vallejo with respect to what she/he saw, heard, or 

otherwise sensed. 

6. Confidential Material disclosed may be used in the litigation of this action only, and 

not for any other purpose. 

7. At the conclusion of the trial and of any appeal or upon other termination of this 

litigation, all Confidential Material received under the provision of this order 

(including any copies made) shall be delivered back to the City of Vallejo. Provisions 

of this order insofar as they restrict disclosure and use of the material shall be in effect 

until all Confidential Material (including all copies thereof) are returned to 

Defendants. 

8. Should a party intend to file Confidential Material with the court, as an exhibit to a 

pleading or otherwise, that party must first notify all other parties (defendants through 

their attorneys or plaintiff pro se), no less than fourteen days before the intended filing 

date, giving any such party reasonable notice and an opportunity to apply to the court 

for an order to file the material under seal. 

9. No document shall be filed under seal unless a party secures a court order allowing the 

filing of a document under seal in accordance with the provisions of E.D. Local Rule 

141. 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 62 Filed 12/09/15 Page 5 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6

10. Nothing in this order shall preclude a party from showing or disclosing any 

documents, e.g., deposition transcript, pleading or brief, which otherwise contain 

Confidential Material as defined in paragraph 1, as long as such document has been 

redacted so as to prevent disclosure of such Confidential Material. 

11. The foregoing is without prejudice to the right of any party (a) to apply to the Court 

for a further protective order relating to any Confidential Material or relating to 

discovery in this litigation; (b) to apply to the Court for an order removing the 

Confidential Material designation from any document; and (c) to apply to the Court 

for an order compelling production of documents or modification of this order or for 

any order permitting disclosure of Confidential Materials beyond the terms of this 

order. 

12. Upon receipt of this Protective Order and disclosure of the Confidential Material it 

will be presumed that plaintiff knows of the contents of this Protective Order, 

understands the provisions of this Protective Order and consents to be subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Eastern District, with respect to any 

proceeding relating to the enforcement of this Protective Order. 

13. Violation of the terms of this Protective Order may subject a party, or any non-party 

to whom disclosure is made pursuant to this protective order, to any and all 

permissible sanctions, including dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 4, 2015 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 62 Filed 12/09/15 Page 6 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7

EXHIBIT A 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND

I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of _________________ 

[print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and 

understand the Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California on ___________________ [date] in the case of Deshawn Cathey v. City of 

Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC. I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the 

terms of this Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so comply could 

expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will 

not disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Protective Order to any 

person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order. 

I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Protective Order, even 

if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action. 

Date: _________________ 

City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________ 

Printed name: ______________________________ 

Signature: __________________________________ 

Case 2:14-cv-01749-JAM-AC Document 62 Filed 12/09/15 Page 7 of 7