Edwin Phillips v. Orange County

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 8, 2021
Docket8:21-cv-00255
StatusUnknown

This text of Edwin Phillips v. Orange County (Edwin Phillips v. Orange County) 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
Edwin Phillips v. Orange County, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

Michael L. Wroniak (State Bar No. 210347) Chandler A. Parker (State Bar No. 277902) 2 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 3 750 The City Drive, Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868 4 (714) 825-4100 – FAX (714) 823-4101 5 Email: mwroniak@ccllp.law Email: cparker@ccllp.law 6

7 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ORANGE 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 EDWIN PHILLIPS, an individual ) CASE NO. 8:21-cv-00255-DOC-KES ) Hon. David O. Carter, Courtroom 9D 13 Plaintiff, ) 14 ) [DISCOVERY MATTER] vs. ) 15 ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 16 COUNTY OF ORANGE, a ) municipality; and DOES 1-10, ) 17 inclusive, ) 18 ) Defendants. ) 19 ) 20 ) Complaint Filed: 02/08/2021 ) Trial Date: None 21 ) 22 ) ) 23 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 24 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 28 / / / 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 5 and from 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 following 7 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 8 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 9 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 10 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 11 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 12 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 13 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 14 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 The case arises from a use of force incident between Plaintiff EDWIN PHILLIPS 17 (“Plaintiff”) and Sheriff Deputies employed by Defendant COUNTY OF ORANGE 18 (“County”) at the Theo Lacy Facility (“TCF”) on January 5, 2020. Plaintiff alleges 19 alleging the following five (5) claims arising from the incident: 1) Battery; 2) 20 Negligence; 3) Bane Act Violations; 4) Excessive Force in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 21 1983; and 5) First Amendment Retaliation in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 This action is likely to involve materials protected by California Evidence Code 23 section 1040, California Code of Civil Procedure section 129, California Penal Code 24 section 632, the official information privilege or other state or federal statutes, court 25 rules, case decisions, or common law prohibiting dissemination and disclosure. 26 Additionally, this action may involve other proprietary information concerning police 27 practices and security protocols for which special protection from public disclosure and 28 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. In terms of discovery, Defendants anticipate that a protective order will be 2 necessary in connection with the following items of evidence: 1) surveillance and 3 handheld video footage from the interior of the TCF which may include information 4 about sensitive security features inside the jail and reveal the identities of inmates 5 receiving medication, medical treatment or otherwise engaging in activities with a 6 reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) recordings of telephone calls made from inside 7 the jail which may include confidential communication with attorneys, medical 8 professionals, and clergy; 3) personnel and administrative records of peace officers; 4) 9 mental health and medical records protected by HIPPA; 5) Photographs and audio 10 recordings; and 6) such other evidence for which dissemination should be limited for 11 use in this action only. 12 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 13 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 14 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 15 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 16 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 17 of 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 tactical 19 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 20 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 21 not be part of the public record of this case. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: Edwin Phillips v. County of Orange, et al. (Case No.: 8:21-CV- 24 00255 DOC (KESx) 25 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 26 information or items under this Order. 27 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 28 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 2 Statement. 3 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 4 support staff). 5 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 6 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 7 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 8 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 9 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 10 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 11 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 12 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 13 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 14 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 15 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 16 counsel. 17 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 18 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 19 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 20 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 21 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 22 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 23 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 24 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 25 support staffs). 26 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 27 Discovery Material in this Action. 28 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 2 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 3 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 4 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 Material 8 from a Producing Party. 9 3.

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

Related

§ 1983
28 U.S.C. § 1983
§ 21
28 U.S.C. § 21

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Edwin Phillips v. Orange County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-phillips-v-orange-county-cacd-2021.