Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJanuary 12, 2023
Docket1:21-cv-00436
StatusUnknown

This text of Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District (Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAISY BUENO, individually and as Case No. 1:21-cv-436-AWI-HBK guardian ad litem of S.B., a minor, 12 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. (Doc. No. 49) 14 BASS LAKE JOINT UNION 15 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 16 Defendant. 17

18 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) the parties have met and conferred and 19 agree that the discovery of Confidential Materials in this matter be made pursuant to the terms of 20 this Protective Order. 21 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the parties stipulate, through their attorneys of record, to 22 the entry of an order as follows: 23 In order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents during the course of 24 discovery, which may be subject to confidentiality and extremely sensitive and private limitations 25 due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights, the Parties are hereby ordered to comply with 26 the terms of the following Protective Order: 27 1. The Need For A Protective Order. The request for a protective order is controlled 28 1 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a 2 party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, 3 including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or 4 commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good 5 cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing “the needs for 6 discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 7 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 8 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 9 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. 10 Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of 11 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 12 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). However, “[t]he court, may, for good cause, issue an order to protect 13 a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expenses.” 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. Rhinehart, 476 U.S. 20, 35-26, 104 S. Ct. 2199, 81 L. Ed. 15 2d 17 (1984). In order to show good cause, the party seeking the protective order “bears the 16 burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted. Phillips 17 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 18 Parties are jointly seeking a protective order for medical and educational records 19 regarding plaintiffs S.B. and medical records regarding Daisy Bueno. Education records of a 20 special education students are protected from public disclosure under the Family Education 21 Rights and Privacy Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) and California Education Code § 49076. 22 Thus, the court finds find good cause supports a protective order over S.B.’s educational records. 23 With respect to medical records, “[m]edical records are precisely the type of records that 24 are routinely entitled to protection under protective orders.” Thomas v. Douglas, Case No. CV- 25 14-8013-FMO (AGRx), 2015 WL 13763646, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015); Fischer v. City of 26 Portland, No. CV 02-1728, 2003 WL 23537981, at *4 (D. Or. Aug. 22, 2003) (finding medical 27 records were “categorically entitled to some pretrial protection from public disclosure”). Thus, 28 the Court finds good cause supports a protective order over the personal medical records of 1 Plaintiff’s S.B. and Daisy Bueno. 2 2. In this Protective Order, the words set forth below shall have the following 3 meanings: 4 a. “Proceeding” means the above-entitled proceeding. 5 b. “Court” means the Hon. Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, or any other judge to which this 6 Proceeding may be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings. 7 c. “Confidential” means any information regarding S.B.’s medical and educational 8 and Daisy Bueno’s medical records which is in the possession of a Designating Party who 9 believes in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable 10 law, limited to Documents, Testimony, or Information as defined below. 11 d. “Confidential Materials” means any Documents, Testimony or Information as 12 defined below designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the provisions of this Stipulation and 13 Protective Order. 14 e. “Designating Party” means the Party that designates Materials as “Confidential.” 15 f. “Disclose” or “Disclosed” or “Disclosure” means to reveal, divulge, give, or make 16 available Materials, or any part thereof, or any information contained therein. 17 g. “Documents” means (i) any “Writing,” “Original,” and “Duplicate,” which have 18 been produced in discovery in this Proceeding by any person, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, 19 or summaries of all or any part of the foregoing regarding S.B.’s medical and educational and 20 Daisy Bueno’s medical records. 21 h. “Information” means the content of Documents or Testimony. 22 i. “Testimony” means all depositions, declarations or other testimony taken or used 23 in this Proceeding. 24 3. The Designating Party shall have the right to designate as “Confidential” any 25 Documents, Testimony or Information that the Designating Party in good faith believes to contain 26 non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law. However, 27 the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: 28 (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party of 1 becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of a 2 publication not involving a violation of this Order. 3 4. The entry of Protective Order does not alter, waive, modify, or abridge any right, 4 privilege or protection otherwise available to any Party with respect to the discovery of matters, 5 including but not limited to any Party’s right to assert the attorney-client privilege, the attorney 6 work product doctrine, or other privileges, or any Party’s right to contest any such assertion. 7 5. Any Documents, Testimony or Information to be designated as “Confidential” 8 must be clearly so designated before the Document, Testimony or Information is Disclosed or 9 produced. The parties may agree that the case name and number are to be part of the 10 “Confidential” designation. The “Confidential” designation should not obscure or interfere with 11 the legibility of the designated Information. 12 a. For Documents (apart from transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial 13 proceedings), the Designating Party must affix the legend “Confidential” on each page of any 14 Document containing such designated Confidential Material. 15 b. For Testimony given in depositions the Designating Party may either: 16 i. identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, all 17 “Confidential” Testimony, by specifying all portions of the Testimony that 18 qualify as “Confidential;” or 19 ii.

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

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Burrell v. Hampshire County
307 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bueno v. Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bueno-v-bass-lake-joint-union-elementary-school-district-caed-2023.