Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00903
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 || Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805) 2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 3 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 4|| Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 5 || E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com paul@markmerin.com 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, TAIJAH THOMAS, TAIONNA THOMAS, 8 ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE 9|/|}/PORTER | SCOTT 10 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 1 Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383 350 University Ave., Suite 200 12 || Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 13 || FAX: 916.927.3706 14 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO 15 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT R. JONES, CHRISTOPHER STURGIS, 16 HERMELINDO RUBIO, and GUIL MONGALO 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 || ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, No. 2:20-cv-0903-KJM-DB TAIJAH THOMAS, TAIONNA THOMAS, ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff: RE: DEFENDANTS’ SECOND aintilts, SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES; ORDER 23 || vs. 24 || COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 23 || SCOTT R. JONES, CHRISTOPHER STURGIS, %6 HERMELINDO RUBIO, GUIL MONGALO, and DOE 4 to 50, 27 Defendants. 28

1 A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION 2 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 3 in section C is likely to involve production of confidential or private information for which protection 4 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be 5 warranted. Plaintiffs have not yet been permitted to view the materials described in section C. The parties 6 acknowledge that this protective order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or discovery 7 activity, and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 8 to such protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The parties further acknowledge that this protective order 9 does not entitle any party to file information designated as protected or confidential under seal, where 10 E.D. Cal. L.R. 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be 11 applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 12 B. DEFINITIONS 13 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 14 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 15 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action 16 consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 17 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendants 18 designate as “Confidential” and described in section C. 19 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 20 Protective Order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined in good 21 faith by the attorneys representing the Designating Party to be subject to protection pursuant to Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 26(c). Confidential Documents, material, and/or information shall be used solely for purposes of 23 litigation. Confidential Information shall not be used by the non-Designating Party for any business or 24 other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all Parties to this action or as authorized by further order of 25 the Court. 26 4. “Defendants” shall mean the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO 27 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT R. JONES, CHRISTOPHER STURGIS, 28 HERMELINDO RUBIO, GUIL MONGALO, as well as any other Defendants that may subsequently be 1 added to this action (for example, “DOE 4 to 50”). 2 5. “Plaintiffs” shall mean the ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, TAIJAH THOMAS, 3 TAIONNA THOMAS, ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE. 4 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants, identified above. 5 C. INFORMATION COVERED 6 Covered Information: 7 Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection 8 under this Protective Order is limited to the following: 9 1. The documents identified in Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosures as “Custody 10 and classification files of Joshua Vaden for the five years preceding the subject incident” (DEFS 04208 – 11 04305); 12 2. The documents identified in Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosures as “Training 13 evaluation documents in the training file of Deputy Hermelindo Rubio” (DEFS 04401 – 04433); and 14 3. The documents identified in Defendants’ Second Supplemental Disclosures as “Training 15 evaluation documents in the training file of Deputy Christopher Sturgis” (DEFS 03839 – 03883). 16 These records may contain sensitive and private information that is not relevant to this action or 17 subject to disclosure, such as home addresses, contact information, social security numbers, dates of 18 birth, etc. The Court permits Defendants’ pre-production redaction of such limited information, to the 19 extent that any redacted documents are accompanied by a redaction log/designation obviously identifying 20 each instance of redaction and the information redacted. 21 Particularized Need for Protection: 22 Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(2), Defendants maintain that a specific, particularized need 23 for protection as to the information covered by this Protective Order exists. In good faith, Defendants 24 represented to the Court that the materials designated to be covered by this Protective Order are limited 25 solely to those which would qualify for protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and does not include 26 information which has been subject to protection on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re 27 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (identifying a two-part test 28 for obtaining a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). 1 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 2 Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(3), the need for protection pursuant to this Protective Order is 3 for the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of 4 resources concerning a potential Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) motion for protective order. The entry of this 5 Protective Order may prevent the parties and the Court from conducting the usual document-by- 6 document analysis necessary to obtain protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), in favor of a procedure 7 whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants’ good faith representations. See, e.g., 8 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986) (“[T]he burden of justifying the 9 confidentiality of each and every document sought to be covered by a protective order remains on the 10 party seeking the protective order; any other conclusion would turn [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 26(c) on its head.”). 11 As a result, production may be made with this Protective Order in place and, if necessary, will permit 12 discrete and narrowed challenges to the documents covered by this Protective Order. 13 D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” by the 15 Defendants and produced subject to the following Protective Order: 16 1. The Confidential Documents shall be used solely in connection with the above-captioned 17 civil case, and in the preparation and trial of the case. The Parties do not waive any objections to the 18 admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial. 19 2. The Parties will designate the Confidential Documents as confidential by affixing a mark 20 labelling them “Confidential.” 21 3. The Confidential Documents may only be disclosed to the following persons: 22 a. Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of the LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. 23 MERIN, partners and associate attorneys in that office, if any, as counsel for Plaintiffs in the case 24 enumerated above; 25 b. Carl L. Fessenden and Suli A. Mastorakos of PORTER SCOTT, partners and 26 associate attorneys in that office, as counsel for Defendants in the case enumerated above; 27 c. Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel 28 referred to in subparts (a) and (b) immediately above, including stenographic deposition reporters or 1 videographers retained in connection with this action; 2 d. Court personnel, including stenographic reporters or videographers engaged in 3 proceedings as are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial in the civil action; 4 e. Any expert, consultant, or investigator retained in connection with this action; 5 however, such persons must be advised of and abide by this protective order; 6 f. The finder of facts at the time of trial, subject to the court’s rulings on in limine 7 motions and objections of counsel; and 8 g. Witnesses during their depositions in this action. If confidential documents are 9 used in the deposition, the documents must be identified as “Confidential” and the portion of the 10 deposition in which the documents are described should also be considered confidential. 11 4. Information covered by this Protective Order does not automatically entitle the Parties to 12 file such information or documents with the Court under seal. Any request to seal documents is governed 13 by E.D. L.R. 141. If the Confidential Documents are filed with any motion or other pleading, a party may 14 seek permission from the Court to file the Confidential Documents under seal according to E.D. Cal. L.R. 15 141. If permission is granted, the Confidential Documents will be filed and served in accordance with 16 E.D. Cal. L.R. 141. 17 5. The designation of the Confidential Documents as “Confidential” and the subsequent 18 production thereof is without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose the admissibility of the 19 Confidential Documents or information contained therein. 20 6. Any party or non-party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time. A party 21 or non-party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a 22 challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed. The Challenging Party shall initiate the 23 dispute resolution process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and 24 describing the basis for each challenge. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith 25 and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice-to-voice dialogue; other forms of 26 communication are not sufficient) within seven (7) days of the date of service of notice. In conferring, the 27 Challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality designation was not proper 28 and must give the Designating Party an opportunity to review the designated material, to reconsider the 1 circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, to explain the basis for the chosen designation. 2 A Challenging Party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this 3 meet and confer process first or establishes that the Designating Party is unwilling to participate in the 4 meet and confer process in a timely manner. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without Court 5 intervention, the Designating Party shall file and serve a motion for protective order pursuant to Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 26(c) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 251 within twenty-one (21) days of the initial notice of challenge or 7 within seven (7) days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process will not resolve their 8 dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by the Designating Party to make such a motion within twenty-one 9 (21) days (or seven (7) days, if applicable) shall automatically waive the “Confidential” designation for 10 each challenged designation. In addition, the Challenging Party may file a motion challenging a 11 confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so. The burden of persuasion in 12 any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating Party. Unless the Designating Party has 13 waived the confidentiality designation by failing to file a motion to retain confidentiality as described 14 above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is 15 entitled under the Designating Party’s designation until the Court rules on the challenge. 16 7. Should the Confidential Documents or any information contained therein be disclosed, 17 through inadvertence or otherwise, to any person not authorized to receive it under this Protective Order, 18 the disclosing person(s) shall promptly (a) inform counsel for the Defendants of the recipient(s) and the 19 circumstances of the unauthorized disclosure to the relevant producing person(s) and (b) use best efforts 20 to bind the recipient(s) to the terms of this Protective Order. 21 8. The Confidential Documents shall not lose its confidential status because it was 22 inadvertently or unintentionally disclosed to a person not authorized to receive it under this Protective 23 Order. 24 9. The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover the information defined above, as 25 well as any information copied from the materials. However, the protections conferred by this Protective 26 Order do not cover: (A) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure or which 27 subsequently becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure, including becoming part of the 28 public record through trial or otherwise; and (B) any information known prior to the disclosure or 1 obtained after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no 2 obligation of confidentiality. 3 10. After the conclusion of this litigation, the Confidential Documents will remain 4 confidential. “Conclusion” of this litigation means a termination of the case following a trial, settlement, 5 or dismissal of the Action with prejudice for any other reason. 6 11. This Stipulated Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to 7 be binding on all parties and affected persons until this litigation terminates, subject to any subsequent 8 modifications of this Stipulated Protective Order for good cause shown by this Court or any Court having 9 jurisdiction over an appeal of this action. Upon termination of this litigation, the parties agree the 10 Stipulated Protective Order shall continue in force as a private agreement between the parties. 11 12. The parties may request additional records to be subject to this Stipulated Protective 12 Order. If a party believes a document to be produced should be subject to this Stipulated Protective 13 Order, the parties must meet and confer. If there is agreement, the parties shall submit an amendment to 14 this Stipulated Protective Order to identify the additional documents. If the parties cannot agree, a 15 Motion for Protective Order shall be filed accordingly. 16 13. During the pendency of this lawsuit, the Court shall (a) make such amendments, 17 modifications and additions to this Protective Order as it may deem appropriate upon good cause shown; 18 and, (b) adjudicate any dispute arising under it. 19 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 20 Dated: January 6, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 21 /s/ Mark E. Merin 22 By: __________________________________ 23 Mark E. Merin 24 P aul H. Masuhara Attorneys for Plaintiffs 25 ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, TAIJAH THOMAS, TAIONNA THOMAS, 26 ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE 27

28 1 || Dated: January 11, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 5 PORTER | SCOTT

3 /s/ Suli A. Mastorakos (as authorized on January 11, 2022) 4 By: Carl L. Fessenden 5 Suli A. Mastorakos 6 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO 7 COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT R. JONES, CHRISTOPHER STURGIS, 8 HERMELINDO RUBIO, and GUIL MONGALO ? ORDER 10 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 12 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will decide 13 || the matter related to that request to seal. 14 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential pursuant to 15 || this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the court under seal. 16 || Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed by Local Rule 141. In 17]| brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only be sealed by a written order of the court after a 18 || specific request to seal has been made. L.R. 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ 20 || shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). 22 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that □□□□□□□□□□□ 23 || reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially related” to the merits of □ 24 || case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 25 || Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 26 || F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 //// 28 || ////

1 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of certain 2 documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the court at the 3 hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 4 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which the 5 parties cannot informally resolve, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local Rule 251. 6 Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex parte basis or on 7 shortened time. 8 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s approval. If 9 the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order for the 10 court’s consideration. 11 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the 12 terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 13 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation that is in conflict with anything in this order is hereby 14 DISAPPROVED. 15 DATED: January 12, 2022 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28