Estate of Maxwell Aguierre v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 1, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-05318
StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Maxwell Aguierre v. County of Los Angeles (Estate of Maxwell Aguierre v. County of Los Angeles) 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 Maxwell Aguierre v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 KOe’HviAn ROA’H LarAaW, E sAqP., CS BN 314559 BLAriWan OHFuFrwICitEzS, EOsFq .B, SRBIANN 2 H82U8R1W7 ITZ 1730 W. Cameron Ave, Ste 200 6565 W Sunset Blvd, Ste 410 2 West Covina, CA 91790 Los Angeles, CA 90028-7218 T: (310) 525-5882 | F: (310) 525-5882 T: (323) 244-4147 | F: (323) 417-4869 3 Email: kevin@oharalawapc.com Email: bhurwitz@hurwitzlawgroup.com 4 Denisse O. Gastélum, SBN 282771 Selene Estrada-Villela, SBN 354994 5 GASTÉLUM LAW, APC A Professional Corporation 6 3767 Worsham Ave. Long Beach, California 90808 7 T: (213) 340-6112 | F: (213) 402-8622 Email: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com 8 sestradavillela@gastelumfirm.com

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF MAXWELL AGUIRRE, et al. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11

12 THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

13 ESTATE OF MAXWELL AGUIRRE, ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-5318-ODW (AJRx) 14 by and through successors in interest, ) [Assigned to the Hon. Otis D. Wright, Omar Aguirre and Yvette Aguirre; ) District Judge; Referred to the Hon. A. 15 OMAR AGUIRRE, an individual; ) Joel Richlin, Magistrate Judge] YVETTE AGUIRRE, an individual, ) 16 ) Plaintiffs, ) DISCOVERY MATTER 17 ) v. ) 18 ) [PROPOSED] STIPULATED COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a ) PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 public entity; LOS ANGELES ) COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) 20 DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF ROBERT ) Action Filed: June 24, 2024 LUNA, in his individual and official ) 21 capacities; SHERIFF SERGIO ) ALOMA, in his individual and official ) 22 capacities; VIRGINIA DELGADO, in ) her individual and official capacities; ) 23 ROGER MARTIN GALLION, in his ) individual and official capacities; LOS ) 24 ANGELES COUNTY ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ) 25 SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 50, ) individually, jointly and severally, ) 26 ) Defendants. ) 27 )

28 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 5 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. 6 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 7 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 8 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 9 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 10 items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 12 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 13 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 14 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this 17 case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such 18 information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected 19 through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 20 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the 21 protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue 22 burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to 23 other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad 24 purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 25 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully 26 crafted protective order.”). 27 As Plaintiffs are seeking and Defendants may produce, among other things, 28 internal, security sensitive, third party and law enforcement private and confidential 1 information, administrative, personnel and institutional documents, which contain 2 sensitive information that the County of Los Angeles believes need special protection 3 from public disclosure. The documents identified in this Protective Order, which 4 Defendants believe in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which 5 the County of Los Angeles maintains as strictly confidential and are otherwise 6 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 7 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 8 law, are therefore entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 12 of information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of the 14 medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 15 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good 16 Cause Statement, and other applicable federal privileges. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 23 the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 24 testimony, transcripts, or tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures 25 or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 27 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 28 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. 2 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 3 counsel. 4 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 5 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 6 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 7 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 8 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 9 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 10 2.11 Party: any part to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 11 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 12 support staffs). 13 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 14 Discovery Material in this Action. 15 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 16 services (e.g., photocopying; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or 17 demonstrations; and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 18 their employees and subcontractors. 19 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 20 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 22 from a Producing Party. 23 3.

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

Related

Tayloe v. T. & S. Sandiford
20 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court, 1822)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Estate of Maxwell Aguierre v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-maxwell-aguierre-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.