Estate of James Evans v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 15, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-09198·Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ESTATE OF JAMES EVANS, by and ,C ASE NO. 2:24−cv−09198−SRM−JC 11 through successors in interest, 12 LASHONDA BANKS and GODFREY EVANS; LASHONDA BANKS MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 individually; GODFREY EVANS, 14 individually, [CHANGES MADE BY COURT TO Plaintiffs, PARAGRAPHS 3 & 5] 15 v. 16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public 17 entity; LOS ANGELES COUNTY Complaint Filed: 18 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public October 24, 2024 entity; SHERIFF ROBERT LUNA, 19 individually; and DOES 1 through 10, 20 individually,

21 Defendants. 22

23 24 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 26 and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. 27 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to petition the Court to enter the following 1 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 2 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 3 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 4 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 5 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 Good cause exists for entry of this stipulated protective order because discovery 7 exchanged in this action is likely to contain documents with information that could 8 infringe on the privacy rights of third parties, including County employees and other 9 inmates at Men’s Central Jail who are not parties in this matter. Gov. Code § 6254(c) 10 exempts from inspection of public records “personnel, medical, or similar files, the 11 disclosure of which constitute unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 12 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 13 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 14 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 15 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 16 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 17 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is 18 the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 19 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 20 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 21 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 22 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 23 The parties further acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 24 entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets 25 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 26 a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 27 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records 1 to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 2 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210- 3 11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. 4 Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a 5 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support 6 and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party 7 seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 8 Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent 9 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 10 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 11 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 12 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 13 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 14 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 15 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, 16 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 17 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent 18 evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 19 declaration. 20 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 21 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 22 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 23 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 24 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 25 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 26 4. DEFINITIONS 27 4.1 This federal lawsuit entitled Estate of Evans, et al. vs. County of Los 1 causes of action arising from County Defendants’ alleged failure to provide Decedent 2 James Evans with adequate medical care, supervision and monitoring during his 3 detention at Los Angeles’ County’s Men’s Central Jail. 4 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 5 information or items under this Order. 6 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 7 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 8 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 9 Cause Statement. 10 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 11 support staff). 12 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery 14 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 16 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 17 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 18 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 19 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 20 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 21 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 22 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 23 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 24 counsel. 25 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other 26 legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 27 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 1 this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared 2 on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 3 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 4 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 5 support staffs). 6 4.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 7 Discovery Material in this Action.

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

Estate of James Evans v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)