Dukhan Durand Flowers v. Deputy Martinez, Badge No. G7677

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 30, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-01473
StatusUnknown

This text of Dukhan Durand Flowers v. Deputy Martinez, Badge No. G7677 (Dukhan Durand Flowers v. Deputy Martinez, Badge No. G7677) 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
Dukhan Durand Flowers v. Deputy Martinez, Badge No. G7677, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 S D E e O pu N ty H C A o E u n S t H y I C N o ( u C n A se l S tate Bar No. 308262) LAURA FEINGOLD (CA State Bar No. 238246) 2 County Counsel 3 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, Fourth Floor San Bernardino, California 92415-0140 4 Telephone: (909) 387-5461 Facsimile: (909) 387-4069 5 E-Mail: Kellie.Shin@cc.sbcounty.gov

6 Attorneys for Defendant DEPUTY MARIO MARTINEZ-NAVA (erroneously sued and served as DEPUTY MARTINEZ) 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 DUKHAN DURAND FLOWERS, Case No. 5:25-cv-01473 MWC-E

11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE

12 v. ORDER

13 Assigned to: DEPUTY MARTINEZ, Badge No. Honorable Michelle Williams Court 14 G7677, United States District Judge

15 Defendants. Referred to: 16 Honorable Charles F. Eick United States Magistrate Judge 17

19 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 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 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve confidential, proprietary or private 5 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 6 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential, 7 proprietary and private materials and information consist of, among other things, 8 confidential and private information related to peace officers and department 9 policies including information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 10 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 11 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 12 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 13 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 14 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 15 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 16 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 17 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 18 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 19 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that 20 it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 21 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 22 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING 23 UNDER SEAL 24 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 25 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 26 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 27 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 1 from the court to file material under seal. 2 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 3 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 4 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 5 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. 6 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony 7 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 8 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 9 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must 10 be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. 11 The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 12 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 13 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 14 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 15 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 16 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 17 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 18 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 19 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 20 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 21 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 22 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 23 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 24 declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 26 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 27 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 1 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 2 document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 3 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit in Dukhan Durand Flowers v. 6 Deputy Martinez, case number EDCV 5:25-cv-01473 MWC-E. 7 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 8 designation of information or items under this Order. 9 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 10 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 11 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 12 the Good Cause Statement. 13 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 14 their support staff). 15 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 16 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, 19 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained, 20 that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this 21 matter. 22 2.7. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 23 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 24 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 25 2.8 House Counsel: City Attorney including his or her staff. 26 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person including employees and former 27 employees, agency, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not 1 named as a Party to this action. 2 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are retained to represent 3 or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that 4 party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party 5 and includes support staff.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Royston v. Horner
24 A. 25 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1892)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dukhan Durand Flowers v. Deputy Martinez, Badge No. G7677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dukhan-durand-flowers-v-deputy-martinez-badge-no-g7677-cacd-2025.