Fahren James v. City of South Pasadena

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 14, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-08256·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-08256-DSF-KK Document 41 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:456

1 STEVEN J. ROTHANS-STATE BAR NO. 106579 KATRINA J. VALENCIA-STATE BAR NO. 230931 2 CARPENTER, ROTHANS & DUMONT LLP 500 S. Grand Avenue, 19th Floor 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 228-0400 / (213) 228-0401 (Fax) 4 srothans@crdlaw.com; kvalencia@crdlaw.com

5 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, a public entity, and SERGEANT MATTHEW RONNIE, SERGEANT SPENCER LOUIE, 6 SERGEANT ROBERT BARTL, erroneously named herein as RICHARD BARTL, CORPORAL RANDY WISE, and OFFICER CHRIS PEREZ, public 7 employees 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 FAHREN JAMES and VICTORIA ) Case No. 2:21-CV-08256-DSF-KKx PATTERSON, ) 12 ) DISCOVERY MATTER Plaintiffs. ) 13 ) v. ) STIPULATION AND JOINT 14 ) REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, ) PROTECTIVE ORDER RE 15 MATTHEW RONNIE, in his individual ) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS capacity, SPENCER LOUIE, in his ) 16 individual capacity, RICHARD ) BARTL, in his individual capacity, ) Hon. Dale S. Fischer 17 CHRIS PEREZ, in his individual ) capacity, RICHARD CHENEY, and ) [NOTE CHANGES MADE BY 18 Does 1 through 10, ) COURT] ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 21 By and through counsel of record in this action, Plaintiffs FAHREN JAMES and 22 VICTORIA PATTERSON (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants CITY OF SOUTH 23 PASADENA, a public entity, and Sergeant MATTHEW RONNIE, Sergeant 24 SPENCER LOUIE, Sergeant ROBERT BARTL (erroneously named herein as 25 RICHARD BARTL), Corporal RANDY WISE, and Officer CHRIS PEREZ, public 26 employees, and RICHARD CHENEY, an individual ("Defendants") the parties in 27 this action hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court enter a protective 28 order re confidential or private documents -i 1n - this matter [pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 2:21-cv-08256-DSF-KK Document 41 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:457

1 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., Local Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and 2 any applicable Orders of the Court] – as follows: 3 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 5 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 6 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 7 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 8 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 9 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 10 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 11 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 12 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 13 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 14 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 15 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 16 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 17 However, the parties stipulate that all medical records, other private 18 information, and personnel records of any party that are not otherwise available to 19 individuals of the public under applicable law, including but not limited to under 20 California Government Code section 6254, California Evidence Code sections 1043 21 through 1045 and California Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7, et seq. 22 (“Confidential Materials”) will not be distributed or conveyed, in any fashion, 23 whether by original copy, summary, note, or verbal reference, to any individual that 24 is not a named party to this litigation or counsel of record in this action, and that all 25 such records produced by the opposing party which claims confidentiality will be 26 destroyed at the close of litigation. 27 The only exception to this stipulation is for experts retained by the parties. 28 All such experts will be required to sign Exhibit “A” hereto stipulating they will not -2- STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 2:21-cv-08256-DSF-KK Document 41 Filed 07/14/22 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:458

1 convey or otherwise distribute, in any fashion, any Confidential Materials to any 2 other individual and that all such records will be destroyed at the close of litigation. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve confidential peace officer personnel file 5 documents, plaintiffs’ medical records, other private information, as well as personal 6 identifying information of third party witnesses (i.e. addresses, telephone numbers, 7 etc.), for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 8 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential, private 9 and proprietary material and information consist of, among other things, personnel 10 file information; plaintiffs’ confidential medical and/or psychotherapeutic treatment 11 information; and personal identifying information of any third party witnesses, 12 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 13 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 14 decisions, or common law. 15 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 16 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 17 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 18 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 19 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 20 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 21 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 22 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 23 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 24 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. By 25 stipulating to the terms herein parties do not waive any objections to the production 26 of records nor does this stipulation require the production of all records absent 27 objection. 28 // -3- STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Case 2:21-cv-08256-DSF-KK Document 41 Filed 07/14/22 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:459

1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit in FAHREN JAMES, et al. v. City of 3 South Pasadena, et al., case no. 2:21-CV-08256-DSF-KK. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 5 information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 6 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 7 under applicable law, including but not limited to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 26(c), California Government Code section 6254, California Evidence Code 9 sections 1043 through 1045 and California Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7, et 10 seq., and as specified above in the Purposes and Limitations and Good Cause 11 Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: House Counsel and Counsel of Record (as well as their support 13 staff).

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

Fahren James v. City of South Pasadena, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Fahren James v. City of South Pasadena (Fahren James v. City of South Pasadena) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Flynn
49 F.3d 11 (First Circuit, 1995)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)