Eric Henry Saldivar v. Riverside Police Dept. and Local Riverside Police Agentcies

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 19, 2023
Docket2:20-cv-02081
StatusUnknown

This text of Eric Henry Saldivar v. Riverside Police Dept. and Local Riverside Police Agentcies (Eric Henry Saldivar v. Riverside Police Dept. and Local Riverside Police Agentcies) 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
Eric Henry Saldivar v. Riverside Police Dept. and Local Riverside Police Agentcies, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

MICHEL F. MILLS, SBN# 193002 1 THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHEL F. MILLS 155 N. Riverview Drive, Suite 208 2 Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 T. 714.769.9051 3 F. 714.685.1500 Michel@mfmillslaw.com 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 PHAEDRA A. NORTON, City Attorney, SBN 200271 6 REBECCA L. MCKEE, Assistant City Attorney, SBN 289485 DEBRA K. COOK, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 250114 CECILIA ROJAS, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 340468 7 JUDITH L. GALLARDO, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 297688 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY – CITY OF RIVERSIDE 8 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 Riverside, CA 92501 9 Telephone (951) 826-5567 Facsimile (951) 826-5540 10 Attorneys for Defendants POLICE OFFICERS EVAN WRIGHT, ABEL SORIA 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 ERIC H. SALDIVAR, CASE No.: 2:20-cv-02081-CAS-PD 16 Plaintiff, [Assigned to Hon. Christina A. Snyder, 17 v. Courtroom: 8D] Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue 18 POLICE OFFICERS EVAN WRIGHT, ABEL SORIA, et al. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 19 Defendant(s). ORDER 20 21 22 23 24 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, or 26 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 27 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 1 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 2 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 3 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to 4 the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under 5 the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 6 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 7 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 8 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 9 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action involves the officer-involved shooting of Decedent Ernie 12 Saldivar on March 8, 2018 for which special protection from public disclosure and 13 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 14 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 15 things, confidential medical records, personnel records, and use of force 16 investigation and review records (including information implicating privacy rights 17 of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 18 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 19 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 20 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 21 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 22 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 23 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 24 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 25 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 26 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 27 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that 1 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2 2. DEFINITIONS 3 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 5 designation of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 7 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 8 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 9 the Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Counsel of Record (as well as their support staff). 11 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 12 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 15 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 16 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that 17 are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 18 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 19 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 20 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 21 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 22 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 23 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 24 party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and 25 have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 26 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 27 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, 1 their support staffs). 2 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 3 Discovery Material in this action. 4 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 5 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits 6 or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 7 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 8 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 9 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 11 Material from a Producing Party. 12 3. SCOPE 13 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 14 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 15 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 16 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 17 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 18 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 19 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Materials at trial. 20 4. DURATION 21 Once a case proceeds to trial, all the information that was designated as 22 confidential or maintained under this Order becomes public and will be 23 presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless 24 the trial judge finds compelling reasons to proceed otherwise. See Kamakana v. 25 City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing 26 “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from 27 “compelling reasons” needed for merits-related documents). Accordingly, the 1 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 2 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for 3 Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for 4 protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific 5 material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party 6 must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or 7 oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, 8 documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are 9 not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. 10 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited.

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

Related

Warren v. Steer
5 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1886)
New v. Lawrence
3 F. 714 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eric Henry Saldivar v. Riverside Police Dept. and Local Riverside Police Agentcies, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-henry-saldivar-v-riverside-police-dept-and-local-riverside-police-cacd-2023.