Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario; and Does 1 through 20 Inclusive

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 21, 2026
Docket5:25-cv-02827
StatusUnknown

This text of Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario; and Does 1 through 20 Inclusive (Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario; and Does 1 through 20 Inclusive) 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
Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario; and Does 1 through 20 Inclusive, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 JJaOmNeEsS R M. TAoYucEhRst one, SBN 184584 2 jrt@jones-mayer.com Denise Lynch Rocawich, SBN 232792 3 dlr@jones-mayer.com 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 4 Fullerton, CA 92835 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 5 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 6 Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF ONTARIO 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 COREY WOODARD, an individual, Case No.: CV25-02827-JGB (MBK) 13 Judge: Hon. Jesus G Bernal Magistrate Judge: Hon. Michael Kaufman 14 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 15 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER 16 17 CITY OF ONTARIO, a California public entity; and DOES 1 through 20 18 Inclusive, 19 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1 - 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations 3 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, 4 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 5 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 6 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 7 following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order 8 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 9 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 10 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 11 applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file Confidential Information 13 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 14 and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the Court 15 to file material under seal. 16 1.2 Good Cause Statement 17 The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include 18 the production of information and/or documents that are confidential and/or 19 privileged including the production of peace officer personnel file information 20 and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including 21 marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home 22 addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee 23 benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, 24 or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace 25 officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the 26 manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties including compelled 27 statements by peace officers unless specifically denoted as “not confidential” 28 pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7. Defendants contend that such information is 1 privileged as official information. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 2 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 3 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 4 (1976). Further, discovery may require the production of certain San Bernardino 5 County Sheriffs’ Department Policies, Procedures and logs not available to the 6 public and the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise 7 security issues, and/or impede investigations. Peace officer personnel file 8 information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and procedures are 9 hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". 10 Defendants contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 11 substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace 12 officers whose Confidential Information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that 13 the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees 14 due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the 15 benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is minimal while the 16 potential disadvantages are great. 17 Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order to facilitate 18 pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these sensitive disclosures. See Fed. 19 R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 20 21 2. DEFINITIONS 22 2.1 Action: Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario, Case No.: CV25-02827-JGB 23 (MBK), pending before the United States District Court, Central District of 24 California. 25 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation 26 of information or items under this Order. 27 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 28 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 1 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in the 2 Good Cause Statement. 3 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 4 their support staff). 5 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Nonparty that designates information or 6 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 7 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 9 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 10 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 11 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 12 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 13 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 14 an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 15 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this 16 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 17 outside counsel. 18 2.9 Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 19 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 20 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 21 Party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party and have 22 appeared in this Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm that 23 has appeared on behalf of that Party, including support staff. 24 2.11 Party: any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 25 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 26 support staffs). 27 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or 28 Discovery Material in this Action. 1 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 2 support services (for example, photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing 3 exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form 4 or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 5 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 6 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 7 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 8 Material from a Producing Party.

9 3. SCOPE 10 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 11 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 12 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 13 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 14 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 15 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 16 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 17

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

Related

In Re W. J. Marshall Co.
3 F.2d 192 (S.D. Georgia, 1924)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario; and Does 1 through 20 Inclusive, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corey-woodard-v-city-of-ontario-and-does-1-through-20-inclusive-cacd-2026.