Estate of Maxwell Aguierre v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 1, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-05318·Unknown

Opinion

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 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 Email: kevin@oharalawapc.com Email: bhurwitz@hurwitzlawgroup.com Denisse O. Gastélum, SBN 282771 Selene Estrada-Villela, SBN 354994 GASTÉLUM LAW, APC A Professional Corporation 3767 Worsham Ave. Long Beach, California 90808 T: (213) 340-6112 | F: (213) 402-8622 Email: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com sestradavillela@gastelumfirm.com

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

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

ESTATE OF MAXWELL AGUIRRE, ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-5318-ODW (AJRx) 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. OMAR AGUIRRE, an individual; ) Joel Richlin, Magistrate Judge] YVETTE AGUIRRE, an individual, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) DISCOVERY MATTER ) v. ) ) [PROPOSED] STIPULATED COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a ) PROTECTIVE ORDER public entity; LOS ANGELES ) COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF ROBERT ) Action Filed: June 24, 2024 LUNA, in his individual and official ) capacities; SHERIFF SERGIO ) ALOMA, in his individual and official ) capacities; VIRGINIA DELGADO, in ) her individual and official capacities; ) ROGER MARTIN GALLION, in his ) individual and official capacities; LOS ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ) SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 50, ) individually, jointly and severally, ) ) Defendants. ) )

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 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 a 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. Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific 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, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). As Plaintiffs are seeking and Defendants may produce, among other things, internal, security sensitive, third party and law enforcement private and confidential information, administrative, personnel and institutional documents, which contain sensitive information that the County of Los Angeles believes need special protection from public disclosure. The documents identified in this Protective Order, which Defendants believe in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which the County of Los Angeles maintains as strictly confidential and are 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, are therefore entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. 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 the medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, and other applicable federal privileges. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (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 generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, or 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 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 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. 2.11 Party: any part to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 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. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 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 Material at trial. 4. DURATION Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will

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

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

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

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)