Choudhry v. Tulare County

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMarch 30, 2023
Docket1:21-cv-01287
StatusUnknown

This text of Choudhry v. Tulare County (Choudhry v. Tulare County) 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
Choudhry v. Tulare County, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MAHWISH CHOUDHRY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01287-AWI-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 51) 14 TULARE COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 23 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 24 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate 25 to and request that the Court enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 26 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 28 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 1 principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 2 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local 3 Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 4 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 5 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 This Stipulation and Protective Order applies to records provided by Defendant, the 7 Tulare County Sheriff’s Office in connection with jail videos, and any other videos produced by 8 the County, Sheriff. On behalf of Defendants Cervantes and Pimentel, the California Highway 9 Patrol, as their employer, may be producing documents concerning its confidential internal 10 policies, which documents are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this 11 information may jeopardize the security of defendants’ operations, and jeopardize the safety of 12 peace officers. Defendants may also be producing documents that contain personal and 13 confidential information regarding individuals, which information is generally unavailable to the 14 public, including peace officer personnel records and records related to third parties. The 15 disclosure of this information to the public may violate those individuals’ privacy rights. 16 Defendants may also be producing video, audio and still photo images related to the incident at 17 issue in this case which is generally unavailable to the public. In addition, defendants may be 18 producing investigation reports which are generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of 19 which could violate individuals’ privacy rights and jeopardize the safety of officers. This 20 Stipulation also applies to Plaintiff’s booking photograph. Filing of other identifying information 21 including birthdate will be governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and Eastern District 22 Local Rule 140. 23 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 24 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 25 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 26 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 27 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified 28 in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential 1 for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 2 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 3 part of the public record of this case. 4 The parties recognize that it will be necessary for such videos and documents pertaining to 5 peace officers to be disclosed during the discovery portion of this litigation. The parties recognize 6 that California law recognizes the confidentiality of sheriff’s peace officer personnel records, and 7 peace officer personnel records of California Highway Patrol officers. The parties agree that 8 video footage and other records that may depict the lay out of the jail could jeopardize the 9 security of the facility, and that there is a compelling need to maintain the confidentiality of such 10 records. For protections based upon public policy protecting certain law enforcement records 11 pertaining to law enforcement agencies, the parties hereby agree to maintain the confidentiality of 12 the videos and records as stated herein by seeking this protective order. 13 C. LOCAL RULE 141.1 STATEMENT 14 In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 141.1, the parties state as follows: 15 (1) The information eligible for a protective order in this case is: 16 a. employment records that would otherwise be privileged; 17 b. law enforcement tactical and evaluative information; 18 c. unredacted Mobile Video Audio Recording System (MVARS), and county 19 jail videos; 20 d. medical and/or mental health records; 21 e. social security numbers and similar sensitive identifying information 22 (unless redacted by order or by agreement of all parties); 23 f. Plaintiff’s booking photos; 24 g. Birthdates and financial account numbers except as provided by Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and Eastern District Local Rule 140; 26 h. information to which third parties have a right of privacy as provided under 27 law. 28 (2) A particularized need exists as to these categories as follows: 1 a. These records contain confidential and personal information; 2 b. These records contain information that may constitute official information 3 and could risk the safety and security of law enforcement officers if publicly 4 disseminated; 5 c. These records contain information of third parties to this lawsuit that are 6 confidential and personal in nature. 7 (3) A court order is needed to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of this 8 information is enforceable after the litigation has ended. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: Mahwesh Choudhry v. Tulare County, et al., United States District Court for 11 the Eastern District of California, Case No. 21-CV-01287-AWI-SAB. 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information 13 or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 15 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under California 16 law, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 18 staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 20 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 22 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 23 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 24 responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 26 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 27 consultant in this Action. 28 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel 1 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 3 entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Choudhry v. Tulare County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choudhry-v-tulare-county-caed-2023.