Estate of Reynaldo Ramos v. County of Riverside, a public entity

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 15, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00821
StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Reynaldo Ramos v. County of Riverside, a public entity (Estate of Reynaldo Ramos v. County of Riverside, a public entity) 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 Reynaldo Ramos v. County of Riverside, a public entity, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF REYNALDO RAMOS, Case No. 5:25-cv-00821-PVC by and through successor in interest, 12 April Gonzalez; APRIL GONZALEZ, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE individually, ORDER 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a public 16 entity; RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; 17 SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, in his individual and official capacities; 18 HERMAN LOPEZ; MICHAEL KOEHLER; ALYSSA VERNAL; and 19 DOES 1 through 10, individually, jointly and severally, 20 Defendants. 21 22 1. INTRODUCTION 23 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 26 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 27 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 1 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 2 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 3 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 4 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 5 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 6 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 7 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 8 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 9 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT The facts and issues of this case, including the nature of the action, the type of 10 anticipated discovery, and the potential resulting harm should relevant materials be 11 disclosed publicly establish good cause to warrant a protective order. 12 The Complaint in this action names the County of Riverside, Riverside 13 County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Chad Bianco, Herman Lopez, Michael 14 Koehler, and Alyssa Vernal as Defendants. See Dkt. 1, the Complaint. Further, the 15 Complaint in this action lists the following eleven (11) claims for relief: (1) “Failure 16 to Protect From Harm”; (2) “Failure to Provide Medical Care”; (3) “Deprivation of 17 the Right to Familial Relationship”; (4) “Policies, Customs, Practices…,”; (5) 18 Supervisory Liability; (6) “Negligence – Wrongful Death”; (7) “Negligence – 19 Medical Malpractice”; (8) “Violation of California Government Code § 845.6”; (9) 20 “Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1”; (10) “Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et 21 seq.”; and (11) “Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).” Id. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs 22 allege, “This civil rights action seeks to establish the true and unequivocal facts 23 surrounding the in-custody death of pretrial detainee Reynaldo Ramos at the 24 Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Robert Presley Detention Center on April 25 16, 2024.” Id. 26 Accordingly, this action is likely to involve the production of confidential 27 third party information, materials protected by the Official Information Privilege, 1 employment or financial information, and confidential information relating to the 2 County, its deputies, and other inmates, for which special protection from public 3 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 4 warranted. Such information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are 5 properly protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times 6 Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its 7 express purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, 8 embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule 9 contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be 10 implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the 11 Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s 12 privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). 13 Moreover, the potential harm that may result to any or all parties in this action 14 should relevant documents be disclosed publicly includes but is not limited to 15 dissemination of personal, private, and confidential information, cybersecurity 16 breaches, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”) 17 violations, harm to reputation, emotional distress, violation of the Official 18 Information Privilege, and increased risk of institutional and individual safety 19 20 hazards. 21 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect 23 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, ensure that the parties are 24 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 25 conduct of trial, address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 26 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this Action. It is the 27 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 1 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2 2. DEFINITIONS 3 4 2.1 Action: Estate of Reynaldo Ramos, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., 5 Case No. 5:25-cv-00821-PVC. 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 7 designation of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 9 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 10 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 11 the Good Cause Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 13 their support staff). 14 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 15 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 18 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 19 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 20 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 22 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 23 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 25 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 26 counsel. 27 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 1 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 2 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 3 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 4 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 5 2.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 7 support staffs).

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)
Reilly v. Berry
15 P. 26 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1887)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Estate of Reynaldo Ramos v. County of Riverside, a public entity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-reynaldo-ramos-v-county-of-riverside-a-public-entity-cacd-2025.