Andres Felix v. County of Ventura

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 16, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-06002·Unknown

Opinion

10 11 ANDRES FELIX; and FEDERICO Case No. 2:19-CV-06002-DDP-GJS DIAZ, [Hon. District Judge, Dean D. 12 Pregerson; Magistrate Judge, Gail Plaintiff, Standish] 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF VENTURA; SHERIFF [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: 15 BILL AYUB, individually and in his STIPULATED PROTECTIVE official capacity as a PEACE OFFICER ORDER 16 of the VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; DETECTIVE DISCOVERY MATTER individually and in his official capacity 18 as a PEACE OFFICER of the VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF’S 19 OFFICE; DISTRICT ATTORNEY GREGORY D. TOTTEN, individually 20 and in his official capacity as a DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR 21 COUNTY OF VENTURA; DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAVID S. 22 RUSSELL, individually and in his official capacity as a DISTRICT VENTURA; HARRIS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and 25 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

26 Defendant.

27 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 12 This action is likely to involve law enforcement investigative files, other law 13 enforcement agency records, peace officer personnel records, and psychological 14 records and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 15 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 16 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 17 among other things, materials relating to a law enforcement investigation, 18 documents relating to sources and methods of law enforcement investigative 19 practices, peace officer personnel files, materials containing sensitive and/or private 20 information regarding third parties, records pertaining to criminal prosecutions and 21 orders, Ventura County Sheriff’s Office policies, practices, or procedures, and 22 Ventura County Sheriff’s Office training materials, information otherwise generally 23 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 24 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 25 law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 26 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 27 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 1 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 2 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 3 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 4 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 5 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 6 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 10 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 11 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 12 to file material under seal. 13 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 14 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 15 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 16 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 17 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 18 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 19 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 20 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 21 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 22 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 23 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 24 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 25 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 27 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 1 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 2 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 3 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 4 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 5 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 6 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 8 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 9 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 10 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 11 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 12 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 Action: Andres Felix, and Federico Diaz v. County of Ventura, et al. 15 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items under this Order. 17 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 18 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 20 the Good Cause Statement. 21 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 22 their support staff). 23 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 24 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 25 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 26 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 27 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 1 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 3 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 4 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 5 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 6 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 7 counsel. 8 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 9 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Andres Felix v. County of Ventura, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Andres Felix v. County of Ventura (Andres Felix v. County of Ventura) — 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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)