E.H. v. Valley Christian Academy

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 14, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-07574
StatusUnknown

This text of E.H. v. Valley Christian Academy (E.H. v. Valley Christian Academy) 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
E.H. v. Valley Christian Academy, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-07574-MEMF-GJS Document 59 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:417

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 E.H., a minor by and through her 11 guardian ad litem SONYA Case No. 2:21-cv-07574-MEMF-GJS HERRERA 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER v. 14 VALLEY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, 15 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, JOEL MIKKELSON, and DOES 1-30. 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 23 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 24 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 25 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 26 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 27 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 28 under the applicable legal principles. Case 2:21-cv-07574-MEMF-GJS Document 59 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:418

1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve medical, financial, and education-related 3 information, including information regarding minors, for which special protection 4 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 5 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 6 consist of, among other things, personal identifying information of minors, personal 7 health information, personnel records, school records, and confidential financial 8 information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 9 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 10 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 11 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 12 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 13 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 14 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 15 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 16 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 17 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 18 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 19 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 20 should not be part of the public record of this case. 21 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 22 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 23 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 24 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 25 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 26 to file material under seal. 27 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 28 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 2 Case 2:21-cv-07574-MEMF-GJS Document 59 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:419

1 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 2 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 3 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 4 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 5 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 6 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 7 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 8 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 9 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 10 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 11 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 12 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 13 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 14 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 15 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 16 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 17 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 18 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 19 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 20 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 21 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 22 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 23 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 24 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 25 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 26 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 27 2. DEFINITIONS 28 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 3 Case 2:21-cv-07574-MEMF-GJS Document 59 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:420

1 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 2 designation of information or items under this Order. 3 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 4 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 5 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 6 the Good Cause Statement. 7 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 8 their support staff). 9 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 10 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 11 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 12 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 13 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 14 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 15 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 16 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 17 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 18 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 19 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 20 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 21 counsel. 22 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 23 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
E.H. v. Valley Christian Academy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eh-v-valley-christian-academy-cacd-2022.