Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 11, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-01483·Unknown

Opinion

DSeelneinses eE Ost.r aGdaas-tVéliullmel,a S, SBBNN 2 8325747919 4 GASTÉLUM LAW, APC A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3767 Worsham Ave. Long Beach, California 90808 Tel: (213) 340-6112 Fax: (213) 402-8622 Email: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com sestradavillela@gastelumfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ELI MATTHEWS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION ELI MATTHEWS, an individual, ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01483-SVW-KS ) [Assigned to the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson, Plaintiff, ) District Judge; Referred to the Hon. Karen ) L. Stevenson, Magistrate Judge] v. ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a ) DISCOVERY MATTER public entity; LOS ANGELES ) COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) ___________ DEPARTMENT, a public entity, ) [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JAIME ROMERO, individually; ) PROTECTIVE ORDER ALBERT MACIAS, individually; ) DAVID VEGA, individually; HILDA ) RUIZ, individually; ABEL ) Action Filed: February 22, 2024 SANDOVAL, individually; DANIEL ) CONTRERAS, individually; and ) DOES 1-10, inclusive, individuals, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). As Plaintiffs are seeking and Defendants may produce, among other things, internal, security sensitive, third party and law enforcement private and confidential information, administrative, personnel and institutional documents, which contain sensitive information that the County of Los Angeles believes need special protection from public disclosure. The documents identified in this Protective Order, which Defendants believe in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which the County of Los Angeles maintains as strictly confidential and are otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law, are therefore entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of the medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, and other applicable federal privileges. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, or tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any part to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or demonstrations; and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the Orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order

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

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

Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles (Eli Matthews v. County of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)