Estate of Ignacio Lemus v. Orange County Sheriff's Department

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 18, 2025
Docket8:25-cv-00410
StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Ignacio Lemus v. Orange County Sheriff's Department (Estate of Ignacio Lemus v. Orange County Sheriff's Department) 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
Estate of Ignacio Lemus v. Orange County Sheriff's Department, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Denisse O. Gastélum, SBN 282771 Christian Contreras, SBN 330269 2 Selene Estrada-Villela, SBN 354994 LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS GASTÉLUM LAW, APC PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 3 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 360 E. 2nd St., 8th Floor 3767 Worsham Ave. Los Angeles, California 90012 4 Long Beach, California 90808 Tel: (323) 435-8000 Tel: (213) 340-6112 Fax: (323) 597-0101 5 Fax: (213) 402-8622 Email: CC@Contreras-Law.com Email: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com 6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF IGNACIO LEMUS, by and through successor in interest, MARIA 8 LUISA ROBLES DIAS; MARIA LUISA ROBLES DIAS, individually; JOSEFINA SEGURA, individually 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 ESTATE OF IGNACIO LEMUS, by ) CASE NO.: 8:25-cv-00410-DOC-DFM 13 and through successor in interest, ) [Assigned to the Hon. David O. Carter, MARIA LUISA ROBLES DIAS; ) District Judge; Referred to the Hon. 14 MARIA LUISA ROBLES DIAS, ) Douglas F. McCormick, Magistrate Judge] individually; JOSEFINA SEGURA, ) 15 individually, ) DISCOVERY MATTER ) 16 Plaintiffs, ) ) 17 v. ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ) 18 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) DEPARTMENT; a public entity; ) 19 ORANGE COUNTY, a public entity; ) SHERIFF DON BARNES, ) 20 individually; DEPUTY S. WERT; ) individually; DEPUTY M. ) 21 ANDREWS; individually; DEPUTY ) TREADWELL, individually; and ) 22 DOES 1-20, individually, jointly and ) severally, ) 23 Defendants. ) ) 24 ) ) 25 )

28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 4 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 5 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 6 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 7 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 8 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 9 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 10 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to a file confidential 11 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 12 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 13 the court to file material under seal. 14 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this 16 case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such 17 information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly 18 protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. 19 Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express 20 purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 21 oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific 22 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, 23 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected 24 through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). 25 2. DEFINITIONS 26 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, Estate of Ignacio Lemus, et al. v. 27 Orange County Sheriff’s Department, et al.; Case No. 8:25-cv-00410-DOC-DFM. 28 1 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 2 of information or items under this Order. 3 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 4 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 5 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 6 Good Cause Statement. 7 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 8 their support staff). 9 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 10 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 11 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 12 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 13 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 14 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 15 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 16 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 17 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 18 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 19 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 20 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 21 counsel. 22 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 23 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 24 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 25 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 26 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 27 has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. 28 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 1 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 2 support staffs). 3 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 4 Discovery Material in this Action. 5 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 6 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 7 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 8 and their employees and subcontractors. 9 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 10 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 11 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 12 from a Producing Party. 13 3. SCOPE 14 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 15 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 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 Material at trial. 20 4. DURATION 21 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as 22 confidential or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will 23 be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless 24 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are 25 made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” 27 showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” 28 1 standard when merits-related documents are part of court record). Accordingly, the 2 terms of this protective order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial. 3 5.

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

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Estate of Ignacio Lemus v. Orange County Sheriff's Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-ignacio-lemus-v-orange-county-sheriffs-department-cacd-2025.