Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 11, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-01483
StatusUnknown

This text of Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles (Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles) 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
Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 DSeelneinses eE Ost.r aGdaas-tVéliullmel,a S, SBBNN 2 8325747919 4 2 GASTÉLUM LAW, APC A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3 3767 Worsham Ave. Long Beach, California 90808 4 Tel: (213) 340-6112 Fax: (213) 402-8622 5 Email: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com sestradavillela@gastelumfirm.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ELI MATTHEWS 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 11 ELI MATTHEWS, an individual, ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01483-SVW-KS 12 ) [Assigned to the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson, Plaintiff, ) District Judge; Referred to the Hon. Karen 13 ) L. Stevenson, Magistrate Judge] v. ) 14 ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a ) DISCOVERY MATTER 15 public entity; LOS ANGELES ) 16 COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) ___________ DEPARTMENT, a public entity, ) [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JAIME ROMERO, individually; ) PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 ALBERT MACIAS, individually; ) DAVID VEGA, individually; HILDA ) 18 RUIZ, individually; ABEL ) Action Filed: February 22, 2024 SANDOVAL, individually; DANIEL ) 19 CONTRERAS, individually; and ) DOES 1-10, inclusive, individuals, ) 20 ) Defendants. ) 21 ) ) 22 23 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 24 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 26 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 27 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. 28 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 1 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 2 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 3 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 4 items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 5 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 6 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 7 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 8 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 9 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this 11 case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such 12 information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected 13 through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 14 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the 15 protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue 16 burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to 17 other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad 18 purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 19 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully 20 crafted protective order.”). 21 As Plaintiffs are seeking and Defendants may produce, among other things, 22 internal, security sensitive, third party and law enforcement private and confidential 23 information, administrative, personnel and institutional documents, which contain 24 sensitive information that the County of Los Angeles believes need special protection 25 from public disclosure. The documents identified in this Protective Order, which 26 Defendants believe in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which 27 the County of Los Angeles maintains as strictly confidential and are otherwise 28 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 1 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 2 law, are therefore entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 6 of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of the 8 medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 9 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good 10 Cause Statement, and other applicable federal privileges. 11 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 12 support staff). 13 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 17 the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 18 testimony, transcripts, or tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures 19 or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 22 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 25 counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 27 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 28 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 1 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 2 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 3 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 4 2.11 Party: any part to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 5 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 6 support staffs). 7 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 8 Discovery Material in this Action. 9 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 10 services (e.g., photocopying; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or 11 demonstrations; and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 12 their employees and subcontractors. 13 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 14 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 16 from a Producing Party. 17 3. SCOPE 18 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected 19 Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from 20 Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected 21 Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their 22 Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 23 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the Orders of the trial 24 judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 25 4. DURATION 26 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 27 imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise 28 in writing or a court order otherwise directs.

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

Related

The Ship Octavia .—Nicholls
14 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1816)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eli-matthews-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2024.