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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 19, 2023·No. 2:20-cv-02081·Unknown

Opinion

MICHEL F. MILLS, SBN# 193002 155 N. Riverview Drive, Suite 208 Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 T. 714.769.9051 F. 714.685.1500 Michel@mfmillslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff PHAEDRA A. NORTON, City Attorney, SBN 200271 REBECCA L. MCKEE, Assistant City Attorney, SBN 289485 DEBRA K. COOK, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 250114 CECILIA ROJAS, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 340468 JUDITH L. GALLARDO, Deputy City Attorney, SBN 297688 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY – CITY OF RIVERSIDE 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone (951) 826-5567 Facsimile (951) 826-5540 Attorneys for Defendants POLICE OFFICERS EVAN WRIGHT, ABEL SORIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIC H. SALDIVAR, CASE No.: 2:20-cv-02081-CAS-PD Plaintiff, [Assigned to Hon. Christina A. Snyder, v. Courtroom: 8D] Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue WRIGHT, ABEL SORIA, et al. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Defendant(s). ORDER 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 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 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. This action involves the officer-involved shooting of Decedent Ernie Saldivar on March 8, 2018 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential medical records, personnel records, and use of force investigation and review records (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 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. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 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 how 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 Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Counsel of Record (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 in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 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 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.9 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. 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, their support staffs). 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.12 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. 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.14 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 Materials at trial. 4. DURATION Once a case proceeds to trial, all the information that was designated as confidential or maintained under this Order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless the trial judge finds compelling reasons to proceed otherwise. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” needed for merits-related documents). Accordingly, the 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 must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must

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

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

Eric Henry Saldivar v. Riverside Police Dept. and Local Riverside Police Agentcies (Eric Henry Saldivar v. Riverside Police Dept. and Local Riverside Police Agentcies) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)