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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 21, 2026·No. 5:25-cv-02827·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

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

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

Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario; and Does 1 through 20 Inclusive (Corey Woodard v. City of Ontario; and Does 1 through 20 Inclusive) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)