Brian McMillan v. Doug Cirbo

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 25, 2025
Docket8:25-cv-00425
StatusUnknown

This text of Brian McMillan v. Doug Cirbo (Brian McMillan v. Doug Cirbo) 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
Brian McMillan v. Doug Cirbo, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION 10

11 BRIAN McMILLAN, Case No.: 8:25-cv-00425-SRM (JDEx) 12

13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 vs. ORDER

15 DOUG CIRBO, MARK TETTEMER, 16 SCOTT VOIGTS, ROBERT PEQUENO, BENJAMIN YU, DEBRA ROSE, CITY 17 OF LAKE FOREST AND DOES 1 TO 18 10, 19 Defendants. 20

21 Based on the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 38) and for good cause shown, the 22 Court finds and orders a follows. 23 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 26 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 27 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 28 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 1 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 2 3 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 4 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 5 under the applicable legal principles. a. 6 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 This action is likely to involve criminal and/or administrative files of 8 commercial tenants, financial and/or proprietary information for which special 9 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 10 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 11 and information consist of, among other things, criminal and/or administrative files 12 of commercial tenants, confidential business or financial information, information 13 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 14 development, or commercial information (including information implicating 15 privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the 16 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 17 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, 18 to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 19 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 20 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 21 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 22 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 23 24 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 25 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 26 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 27 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 28 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 1 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 2 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 4 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 5 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 6 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 7 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 8 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 9 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 10 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 11 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 12 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 13 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 14 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 15 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 16 as CONFIDENTIAL does not — without the submission of competent evidence by 17 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 18 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable — constitute good cause. 19 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 20 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 21 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 22 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 23 24 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 25 or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 26 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 27 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 28 under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 1 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 2 3 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 4 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 5 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 6 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 4. DEFINITIONS 8 4.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 9 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 10 designation of information or items under this Order. 11 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 12 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 13 qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified 14 above in the Good Cause Statement. 15 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 16 well as their support staff). 17 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 18 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 19 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 21 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 22 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 23 24 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 25 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 26 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 27 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 28 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 1 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 2 3 outside counsel. 4 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 5 association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 6 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of 7 a party to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have 8 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 9 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 10 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, 11 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 12 (and their support staffs).

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brian McMillan v. Doug Cirbo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-mcmillan-v-doug-cirbo-cacd-2025.