Dezarae Munoz v. Chad Bianco

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 27, 2025·No. 5:23-cv-02063·Unknown

Opinion

1 Eugene P. Ramirez (State Bar No. 134865) cugeneramir menninglip.com 2 Eugene P. Hanrahan (State Bar No. 185826) eugene. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 3 Kayleigh A. Andersen (State Bar No. 306442) Rapicigh □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 4 MANNING & KAS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 5 /801 S. Figueroa St, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 6 Telephone: GB) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 7 Attorneys for Defendants SHERIFF 8 CHAD BIANCO; Sergeant TODD JOHNSON; Correctional Deputy ABDUL 9 FAR; MORGAN MCCANDLESS; Correctional Corporal BENJAMIN 10 SEAGRAVES-GLADNEY; Deputy KEVIN JONES; Correctional Deputy 2 11 || PHILLIP DIEFENDERFER; Correctional Deputy THOMAS KOLB; Correctional — 412 Deputy MIGUE TRIANA; and Corporal KAT GALLARDO z 13 > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 = CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA = 15 16 oe DEZARAE MUNOZ, individually and | Case No. 5:23-cv-02063-JGB-DTB 17 as successor-in-interest to Estate of ULYSSES MUNOZ AYALA, 18 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiffs, ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL V. 20 SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, an Action Filed: October 10, 2023 21 Individual; Sergeant TODD FAC Filed: November 8, 2024 JOHNSON, an individual, Correctional 22 peput ABDUL FAR, an individual, M IRGAN MCCANDLESS, an 23 Individual, Correctional Corporal BENJAMIN SEAGRAVES- 24 GLADNEY, an Individual, Correctional Deputy KEVIN JONES, an Individual; 25 Correctional Deputy PHILLIP DIEFENDERFER, an Individual, 26 Correctional Deputy THOMAS KOLB, an Individual, Correctional Deputy 27 MIGUE TRIANA, an Individual, Corporal KAI GALLARDO, an 28 individual: RIVERSIDE COUNTY

BOERS RERARE MENT: Defendants. 3 4 5 }1. A.PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 6 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 7 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 8 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 9 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 10 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 2 11 ||not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that x 12 ||the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 13 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 14 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 15 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 16 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 17 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 18 the court to file material under seal. 20 This action is likely to involve medical records, documents containing private 21 information from third parties, police investigation procedures and tactics, and other 22 confidential and private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 24 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 25 among other things, confidential personal information of non-parties, private medical 26 and mental health records, including Plaintiff's and plaintiffs’ decedent’s HIPAA 27 protected medical and mental health care records, internal police reviews and 28 procedures, and other confidential and sensitive information otherwise generally

1 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 2 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 3 Defendants contend that there is good cause for a protective order to maintain the 4 confidentiality of peace officer personnel records. They emphasize that releasing 5 these records, which include internal analyses and legal communications, could 6 hinder law enforcement investigations. 7 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 8 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 9 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 10 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 2 11 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve x 12 || the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 13 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for S$ 14 || tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 15 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 16 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 17 2.. DEFINITIONS 18 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit in Munoz v. County of Riverside, et al. 19 (Case No: 5:23-cv-02063-JGB-DTB). 20 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 21 information or items under this Order. 22 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 23 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 24 }under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 25 Cause Statement. 26 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 27 support staff). 28 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or

1 j/items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 2 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 4 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 5 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 6 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 7 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 8 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 9 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 10 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 2 11 || House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 12 Ilcounsel. 13 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or S$ 14 || other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 15 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 16 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 17 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 18 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 19 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 20 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 21 support staffs). 22 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 23 Discovery Material in this Action. 24 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 25 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 26 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 27 and their employees and subcontractors. 28 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that 1s

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

Dezarae Munoz v. Chad Bianco, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Dezarae Munoz v. Chad Bianco (Dezarae Munoz v. Chad Bianco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.