Carey Coco v. The City of Long Beach

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 1, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-08591
StatusUnknown

This text of Carey Coco v. The City of Long Beach (Carey Coco v. The City of Long Beach) 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
Carey Coco v. The City of Long Beach, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 RODNEY S. DIGGS, Esq. (SBN 274459) RDiggs@imwlaw.com 2 KAELIN S. DAVIS, Esq. (SBN 3 KDavis@imwlaw.com IVIE McNEILL WYATT PURCELL & DIGGS 4 A Professional Law Corporation 5 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, California 90071 6 Telephone: (213) 489-0028 7 Facsimile: (213) 489-0552 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CAREY COCO 8 9 DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney NICHOLAS J. MASERO, Deputy City Attorney 10 State Bar No. 302989 11 411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, California 90802-4664 12 Telephone: (562) 570-2200 13 Facsimile: (562) 436-1579 Attorneys for Defendant 14 CITY OF LONG BEACH 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 CAREY COCO, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-08591-RGK- Plaintiff, (JEMx) 19 vs. 20 CITY OF LONG BEACH; and STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 21 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. ORDER 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 1 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 2 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 3 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 4 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 5 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 6 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 7 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 8 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 9 under the applicable legal principles. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This case involves the wrongful detention and arrest of Plaintiff Carey 12 Coco. Discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of sensitive, 13 confidential documents pertaining to and contained in the private employment 14 personnel file of City of Long Beach Department officers and of the City of Los 15 Angeles Department officers, which include Plaintiff Carey Coco, (collectively 16 “the parties”) production and disclosure of these confidential personnel file 17 documents without this protective order will subject the parties to unwarranted 18 and unnecessary embarrassment, harassment, and/or violation of the parties’ rights 19 20 of privacy. 21 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 23 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 24 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 25 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, 26 and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 27 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 1 and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 3 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 4 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 5 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 6 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 7 from the court to file material under seal. 8 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 9 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 10 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 11 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. 12 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 13 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 14 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 15 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 16 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 17 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 18 as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 19 20 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 21 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party request sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 23 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 24 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 25 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 26 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 27 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 1 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 2 declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 4 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 5 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 6 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 7 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 8 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 9 redaction is not feasible. 10 2. DEFINITIONS 11 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 12 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 13 designation of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 16 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 17 the Good Cause Statement. 18 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 19 20 their support staff). 21 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 22 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 23 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, 25 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 26 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that 27 are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 1 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 2 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 3 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 4 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 5 outside counsel. 6 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 7 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 8 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 9 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 10 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 11 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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)
Greene v. Wilbur
3 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1886)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carey Coco v. The City of Long Beach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-coco-v-the-city-of-long-beach-cacd-2023.