Caroline Wichman v. City of San Luis Obispo

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 16, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-03156
StatusUnknown

This text of Caroline Wichman v. City of San Luis Obispo (Caroline Wichman v. City of San Luis Obispo) 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
Caroline Wichman v. City of San Luis Obispo, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-03156-DMG-RAO Document 42 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:247

1 Douglas C. Smith, Esq. (State Bar No.160013) dsmith@smitlaw.com 2 SMITH LAW OFFICES, LLP 4001 Eleventh Street 3 Riverside, California 92501 Telephone: (951) 509-1355 4 Facsimile: (951) 509-1356 5 Attorney for Defendants COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO and IAN PARKINSON 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Caroline Wichman, individually and as ) CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-03156-DMG successor in interest to Edward Zamora ) (RAOx) 12 Giron II, deceased, ) ) JOINT STIPULATION FOR 13 Plaintiff, ) ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ) ORDER GOVERNING 14 vs. ) PRODUCTION OF ) “CONFIDENTIAL 15 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a ) INFORMATION” municipal entity; COUNTY OF SAN ) 16 LUIS OBISPO, a municipal entity; ) BRYAN AMOROSO, an individual; ) 17 STEVE OROZCO, an individual; IAN ) PARKINSON, an individual; RICK ) 18 SCOTT; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, ) ) 19 Defendants. ) Complaint filed 5/9/22 ________________________________ ) First Amended Complaint 7/23/22 20 21 I. 22 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 25 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 26 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 27 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 28 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to C:\Users\DonnamarieLuengo\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content1O u t l o o k \ A 6 S 6 Z N C R \ p - s t i p 0 2 ( p r o t e c t o r d e r ) w p d JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING PRODUCTION OF “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” Case 2:22-cv-03156-DMG-RAO Document 42 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:248

1 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 2 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 3 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 4 in Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 5 them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth 6 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 7 party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 8 II. 9 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 This action is likely to involve confidential information derived from 11 personnel records, investigatory documents, and other materials subject to privacy 12 protections for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 13 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure 14 of these documents to the context of this litigation as provided herein will, 15 accordingly, further important law enforcement objectives and interests, including 16 the safety of personnel and the public, as well as individual privacy rights of 17 plaintiff, the individual defendants, and third parties. Accordingly, to expedite the 18 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 19 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 20 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 21 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 22 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 23 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 24 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 25 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 26 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 27 should not be part of the public record of this case. 28 /// C:\Users\DonnamarieLuengo\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content2O u t l o o k \ A 6 S 6 Z N C R \ p - s t i p 0 2 ( p r o t e c t o r d e r ) w p d JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING PRODUCTION OF “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” Case 2:22-cv-03156-DMG-RAO Document 42 Filed 08/16/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:249

1 III. 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE 3 FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 5 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 6 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 7 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under 8 seal. 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 motions, 10 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 11 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 12 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 13 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 14 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 15 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 16 made with respect to material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ 17 mere designation of material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the 18 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 19 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 20 protectable— constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to 21 dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the 22 sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the 23 specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 24 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or 25 thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive 26 motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 27 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 28 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal C:\Users\DonnamarieLuengo\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content3O u t l o o k \ A 6 S 6 Z N C R \ p - s t i p 0 2 ( p r o t e c t o r d e r ) w p d JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING PRODUCTION OF “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” Case 2:22-cv-03156-DMG-RAO Document 42 Filed 08/16/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:250

1 must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, 2 or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the 3 confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a 4 redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 5 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that 6 seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 7 why redaction is not feasible. 8 IV. 9 DEFINITIONS 10 A. Action 11 Caroline Wichman, individually and as successor in interest to Edward 12 Zamora Giron II, deceased v. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal entity; 13 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal entity; BRYAN AMOROSO, an 14 individual; STEVE OROZCO, an individual; IAN PARKINSON, an individual; 15 RICK SCOTT; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, United States District Court Case No. 16 2:22-cv-03156-DMG (RAOx). 17 B.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Rineer v. Collins
27 A. 28 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Caroline Wichman v. City of San Luis Obispo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caroline-wichman-v-city-of-san-luis-obispo-cacd-2022.