Amber Widby v. County of Los Angeles, Eli Vera, Angela Carrasco, and Does 1-20, inclusive

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 16, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-05648·Unknown

Opinion

AMBER WIDBY, an individual; CASE NO. 2:25-cv-05648 DMG (JCx) [Assigned to Hon. Dolly M. Gee in Plaintiff, Courtroom 8C] vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a California public entity; ELI [CHANGES MADE BY COURT TO VERA, an individual; ANGELA PARAGRAPHS 3, 8, 9.3 &13] CARRASCO, an individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive;

Defendants. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. This civil rights action alleges, among other claims, an unreasonable seizure, an unlawful search, a conspiracy to violate civil rights, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs while in custody, and municipal liability against the County of Los Angeles and individual Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 2024 at Plaintiff’s residence, Plaintiff’s subsequent arrest and detention, and her medical treatment and housing in the Century Regional Detention Facility (Lynwood Jail) and transfer to other facilities. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 (Filing Protected Material), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve body-worn camera recordings, dispatch/incident reports, operational details concerning Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) response, protective sweeps, personal data of civilians, Plaintiff’s probation information, Plaintiff’s correctional health and jail security materials, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s personal health information, medication records, medication administration records, and Correctional Health Services’ (“CHS”) policies/protocols regarding inmate medical care and medication handling within secured facilities, and limited to witnesses and third parties identified in the pleadings, incident reports, family members, medical staff, and other detainees, whose names, contact information, and statements may appear in records and videos for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, information implicating privacy rights of third parties, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: refers to Amber Widby v. County of Los Angeles, et al., United States District Court, Central District, Case No.: 2:24-cv-05648 DMG (JCx), and any appeals through FINAL DISPOSITION. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, a

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Amber Widby v. County of Los Angeles, Eli Vera, Angela Carrasco, and Does 1-20, inclusive, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Amber Widby v. County of Los Angeles, Eli Vera, Angela Carrasco, and Does 1-20, inclusive (Amber Widby v. County of Los Angeles, Eli Vera, Angela Carrasco, and Does 1-20, inclusive) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Burrell v. Hampshire County
307 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
Silk v. Sieling
7 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1947)