Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00255/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00255-3/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 

ESTATE OF SHERRANO STINGLEY, 

DYMIN STINGLEY, S.S., and ANNETTE 

HILBURN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00255 TLN AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on a motion to enforce or amend/modify the stipulated 

protective order (ECF No. 18) that was approved by the undersigned on August 17, 2023. ECF 

No. 19. This discovery motion was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. 

R. 302(c)(1). The matter was taken under submission on the papers. ECF No. 36. The parties 

submitted the required joint statement. ECF No. 50. For the reasons stated below, the court 

GRANTS the motion. 

I. Relevant Background 

This case arises from the death of Sherrano Stingley, a 48-year-old disabled Black man 

who struggled with mental health issues and periodically experienced mental health episodes. 

ECF No. 1 at 4. According to the complaint, Mr. Stingley was experiencing mental health 

symptoms, including confusion and paranoia, on December 6, 2022, when he attempted to enter a 

Case 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

vehicle and a home he mistakenly believed to belong to his daughter. Id. Police were called and 

arrived around 5:45 a.m. Id. at 5. An encounter ensued which led to Mr. Stingley being 

restrained on the ground, with pressure applied to his back and neck by officers. Id. at 10. Mr. 

Stingley became unconscious and stopped breathing. Id. at 10-11. When officers could not 

awaken Mr. Stingley, they called the fire department and waited for them to arrive on scene. Id. 

at 12. Mr. Stingley died on December 16, 2022, because of his injuries. Id. at 13. 

Plaintiffs sought the personnel files for involved officers through a Request for 

Production. ECF No. 40-1 at 11 (RFP No. 18). On August 17, 2023, the undersigned approved 

the parties’ stipulated protective order specific to personnel files. ECF No. 19. The stipulated 

protective order stated that the covered information included: “1. Personnel Files of Freddy 

Martinez (Bates DEF 01667 – DEF 01748)[;] 2. Personnel Files of Rachell Villegas (Bates DEF 

01749 – DEF 01792)[;] 3. Personnel Files of Brittany Linde (Bates DEF 01577 – DEF 01666).” 

ECF No. 18 at 3. Defendants produced the personnel files on September 6, 2023. ECF No. 40-1 

at 3. Separately, plaintiffs issued a Request for Production seeking records related to all 

“instances of discipline against the tree officers present when Sherrano Stingley was encountered, 

placed into a prone position, and handcuffed on December 6, 2022[.]” ECF No. 40-1 at 12 (RFP 

No. 26). 

Following meet and confer efforts, defendants produced documents responsive to RFP 

No. 26 on October 6, 2023. Id. at 3. The documents were produced under a “confidential” 

designation and Bates labeled DEF 01805-02510. Id. Plaintiffs are currently seeking leave to file 

an Amended Complaint, that would include some of the information contained in that production 

of documents. ECF No. 34. That motion is pending before the District Judge assigned to this 

case. Id. Defendants object to inclusion of information contained in DEF 01805-02510 

appearing in an amended complaint, and ask the undersigned “to find that the discipline records at 

issue are subject to the existing Protective Order. In the alternative, if the Court concludes that 

the existing Protective Order does not cover the discipline records at issue, Defendants request 

that the Court amend the Protective order to include the records.” ECF No. 40 at 2. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

II. Motion 

The existing stipulated protective order, which was approved by the undersigned, is 

unusually specific. It is so specific as to expressly limit its application to documents by identified 

Bates number. By its own very clear terms, the existing stipulated protective order does not apply 

to documents that are Bates labeled DEF 01805-02510. ECF No. 18 at 3. The court will not infer 

broader application where the parties took the unusual step of drafting such a narrow protective 

order. However, the court agrees with defendants that the protective order should be modified to 

incorporate application to the documents Bates labeled DEF 01805-02510. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the method available to limit the breadth or 

use of a discovery request is a motion for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). This rule 

states in relevant part: “A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a 

protective order in the court where the action is pending[.] The motion must include a 

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected 

parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, 

issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Options available to the court include, in part, 

“forbidding the disclosure or discovery; [ ] forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the 

scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to 

determine whether a protective order is appropriate and, if so, what degree of protection is 

warranted. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984); see also Phillips ex rel. 

Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211–12 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The party seeking to limit discovery has the burden of proving “good cause,” which 

requires a showing “that specific prejudice or harm will result” if the protective order is not 

granted. In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)). In this case, the 

stipulated protective order approved by the court was poorly drafted to be unnecessarily narrow in 

its application. The order entered by the undersigned specifically contemplates that the order can 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

be modified with the court’s approval, including through means of a motion such as the one at 

bar. ECF No. 19 at 2. 

As a preliminary matter, the court acknowledges and rejects plaintiff’s arguments that the 

production of the documents renders them presumptively public, and that defendants’ error in 

failing to seek a protective order before producing the documents prevents them from seeking a 

protective order now. ECF No. 40 at 13-16. The court agrees that defendants should not have 

presumed application of the existing narrow protective order, but will not allow this error in 

judgment to prevent them from seeking to remedy the situation. Turning to the merits, the court 

finds that there is good cause to modify the existing protective order to include the documents at 

DEF 01805-02510. These discipline records clearly pertain to highly confidential personnel 

matters that are typically covered by protective orders. ECF No. 40 at 11. Further, plaintiffs do 

not appear able to dispute defendants’ contention that these disciplinary records relate only to 

inflammatory information not clearly related to the fact pattern at issue in this case, and making 

these records public appears to serve no other purpose than to humiliate the deputies involved. 

The court thus finds good cause to amend the protective order to include these documents. 

III. Conclusion 

Defendants’ motion to modify the protective order (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED and the 

protective order issued in this case through the order at ECF No. 19 is hereby MODIFIED to 

apply to the following produced documents: DEF 01805-02510. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 17, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 4