Arturo Santos Garcia v. Roberto Vargas Hernandez

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 5, 2023
Docket8:23-cv-00946
StatusUnknown

This text of Arturo Santos Garcia v. Roberto Vargas Hernandez (Arturo Santos Garcia v. Roberto Vargas Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arturo Santos Garcia v. Roberto Vargas Hernandez, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARTURO SANTOS GARCIA, ) Case No. 8:23-cv-946-CJC(JDEx) 11 ) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ) ) 13 v. ) ) 14 ) ROBERTO VARGAS HERNANDEZ, ) 15 ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 39) and for good cause shown, the 18 Court finds and orders as follows. 19 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 23 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 24 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 25 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 26 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 27 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve private and/or personal information for which 5 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 6 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential materials and information 7 consist of, among other things, medical records, personal financial information, 8 intimate private communications, private videos and photographs, or other 9 confidential information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 10 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 11 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under the state or federal 12 constitutions, state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 13 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 14 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 15 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 16 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in 17 the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 18 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 19 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 20 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 21 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 22 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 23 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 24 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 25 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 26 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 27 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 1 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 2 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 3 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 4 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 5 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 6 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 7 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 8 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 9 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 10 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 11 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 12 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 13 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 14 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 15 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 16 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 17 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 18 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 19 or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 20 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 21 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 22 under seal must be provided by declaration. 23 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 24 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 25 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 26 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 27 1 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 2 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 4. DEFINITIONS 4 4.1 Action: Arturo Santos Garcia v. Roberto Vargas Hernandez, No. 5 8:23-cv-00946-CJC-JDE. 6 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 7 designation of information or items under this Order. 8 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 9 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 10 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 11 the Good Cause Statement. 12 4.4 Counsel: Counsel of Record as well as their support staff. 13 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 17 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 19 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 20 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 22 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 4.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 24 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 25 4.9 Party: any party to this Action, including consultants, retained experts, 26 and Counsel (and their support staffs). 27 1 4.10 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this Action. 3 4.11 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 4 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 5 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 6 and their employees and subcontractors. 7 4.12 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 8 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 4.13 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 10 Material from a Producing Party. 11 5.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arturo Santos Garcia v. Roberto Vargas Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arturo-santos-garcia-v-roberto-vargas-hernandez-cacd-2023.