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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 15, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-00821·Unknown

Opinion

ESTATE OF REYNALDO RAMOS, Case No. 5:25-cv-00821-PVC by and through successor in interest, April Gonzalez; APRIL GONZALEZ, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE individually, ORDER Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a public entity; RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF CHAD BIANCO, in his individual and official capacities; HERMAN LOPEZ; MICHAEL KOEHLER; ALYSSA VERNAL; and DOES 1 through 10, individually, jointly and severally, Defendants. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 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 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 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 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. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT The facts and issues of this case, including the nature of the action, the type of anticipated discovery, and the potential resulting harm should relevant materials be disclosed publicly establish good cause to warrant a protective order. The Complaint in this action names the County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Chad Bianco, Herman Lopez, Michael Koehler, and Alyssa Vernal as Defendants. See Dkt. 1, the Complaint. Further, the Complaint in this action lists the following eleven (11) claims for relief: (1) “Failure to Protect From Harm”; (2) “Failure to Provide Medical Care”; (3) “Deprivation of the Right to Familial Relationship”; (4) “Policies, Customs, Practices…,”; (5) Supervisory Liability; (6) “Negligence – Wrongful Death”; (7) “Negligence – Medical Malpractice”; (8) “Violation of California Government Code § 845.6”; (9) “Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1”; (10) “Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.”; and (11) “Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).” Id. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege, “This civil rights action seeks to establish the true and unequivocal facts surrounding the in-custody death of pretrial detainee Reynaldo Ramos at the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Robert Presley Detention Center on April 16, 2024.” Id. Accordingly, this action is likely to involve the production of confidential third party information, materials protected by the Official Information Privilege, employment or financial information, and confidential information relating to the County, its deputies, and other inmates, for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 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.”). Moreover, the potential harm that may result to any or all parties in this action should relevant documents be disclosed publicly includes but is not limited to dissemination of personal, private, and confidential information, cybersecurity breaches, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”) violations, harm to reputation, emotional distress, violation of the Official Information Privilege, and increased risk of institutional and individual safety hazards. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this Action. It is the 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 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Estate of Reynaldo Ramos, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00821-PVC. 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 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 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 in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 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, 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 party 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 Materia

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

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

Estate of Reynaldo Ramos v. County of Riverside, a public entity (Estate of Reynaldo Ramos v. County of Riverside, a public entity) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)