I.M. v. State of California

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 27, 2022
Docket2:20-cv-11174
StatusUnknown

This text of I.M. v. State of California (I.M. v. State of California) 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
I.M. v. State of California, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-11174-FMO-JEM Document 134 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1502

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 I.M., a minor, by and through her ) CASE NO: 2:20-cv-11174 FMO Guardian Ad Litem, EDWARD TAPIA, 12 EDWARD TAPIA, CHERYL TAPIA- ) (JEMx) RUFENER and BRIANNA PALOMINO, ) 13 Individually and as Successors-In-Interest ) to Decedent, EDWARD BRONSTEIN, FIRST AMENDED 14 ) Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION RE: 15 vs. ) PROTECTIVE ORDER 16 ) DOE CHP OFFICERS 1-10, and DOES ) 17 11-20, Inclusive, )

18 Defendants. ) ) 19 E.W. and L.W., Minors, by and through ) their Guardian Ad Litem, AUNDREA 20 CHERYL ROSA WAGNER, Individually ) and as Successors-In-Interest to Decedent, ) 21 EDWARD BRONSTEIN )

22 Plaintiffs, ) ) 23 vs. )

24 ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity; ) 25 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, a ) public entity; DOE CHP OFFICERS 1-10, 26 AND DOES 11-20, inclusive, ) ) 27 Defendants. ) 28 ____________________________________________________________________________________ FIRST AMENDED STIPULATION RE: [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1- Case 2:20-cv-11174-FMO-JEM Document 134 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:1503

1 Plaintiffs I.M., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, EDWARD 2 TAPIA, EDWARD TAPIA, CHERYL TAPIA-RUFENER and BRIANNA 3 PALOMINO, E.W., a minor, by and through her Guardian Ad litem Aundrea 4 Cheryl Rosa Wagner, L.W., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem 5 Aundrea Cheryl Rosa Wagner, Individually and as Successors-In-Interest to 6 Decedent, EDWARD BRONSTEIN, and Defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 7 ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, a 8 public entity, DUSTY OSMANSON, CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ-ROMERO, 9 ERIC VOSS, MARCIEL TERRY, DIONISIO FIORELLA, CARLOS 10 VILLANUEVA, DIEGO ROMERO, JUSTIN SILVA, DARREN PARSONS, 11 MICHAEL LITTLE, (collectively “CHP DEFENDANTS”) and ARBI 12 BAGHALIAN and VITAL MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, (collectively the 13 “VITAL DEFENDANTS”) by and through their respective counsel, hereby 14 stipulate and agree as follows: 15 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 16 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 17 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 18 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 19 be warranted. 20 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 21 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 22 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 23 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to 24 the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under 25 the applicable legal principles. 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 27 this Stipulated Protective Order does not automatically entitle them to file 28 confidential information under seal and that Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the ____________________________________________________________________________________ FIRST AMENDED STIPULATION RE: [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2- Case 2:20-cv-11174-FMO-JEM Document 134 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:1504

1 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 2 party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. The parties 3 agree that this protective order does not waive the parties’ rights to object to 4 discovery demands or requests for documents and/or information. 5 6 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 The CHP DEFENDANTS, may be producing documents concerning 8 confidential internal policies, which documents are generally unavailable to the 9 public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the security of the 10 State’s operations, and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. The CHP 11 DEFENDANTS may also be producing documents that contain personal and 12 confidential information regarding individuals which information is generally 13 unavailable to the public, including peace officer personnel records. The 14 disclosure of this information to the public may violate those individuals’ privacy 15 rights. The CHP DEFENDANTS may also be producing video, audio and still 16 photo images related to the traffic stop or the death at issue in this Action, which 17 is generally unavailable to the public. Additionally, the CHP DEFENDANTS may 18 be producing investigation reports, which are generally unavailable to the public, 19 the disclosure of which could violate individuals’ privacy rights and jeopardize 20 the safety of officers. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 21 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 22 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 23 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 24 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 25 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective 26 order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties 27 that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 28 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in ____________________________________________________________________________________ FIRST AMENDED STIPULATION RE: [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3- Case 2:20-cv-11174-FMO-JEM Document 134 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:1505

1 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 2 part of the public record of this case. 3 In addition, the VITAL DEFENDANTS, may be producing documents 4 concerning confidential internal policies and proprietary information, which 5 documents are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this 6 information may jeopardize the operations of the VITAL MEDICAL SERVICES, 7 LLC. The VITAL DEFENDANTS may also be producing documents that contain 8 personal and confidential information regarding individuals which information is 9 generally unavailable to the public, including personnel and medical records. The 10 disclosure of this information to the public may violate those individuals’ privacy 11 rights. The VITAL DEFENDANTS may also be producing video, audio and still 12 photo images related to the death at issue in this Action, which is generally 13 unavailable to the public. Additionally, the VITAL DEFENDANTS may be 14 producing reports, medical information, and data, which are generally unavailable 15 to the public. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 16 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 17 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 18 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 19 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of 20 the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information 21 is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 22 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 23 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non- 24 public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 25 record of this case. 26 2. DEFINITIONS 27 2.1 Action: I.M., et al. v. State of California, et al. Case No. 2:20-cv- 28 11174 ____________________________________________________________________________________ FIRST AMENDED STIPULATION RE: [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4- Case 2:20-cv-11174-FMO-JEM Document 134 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:1506

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
I.M. v. State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/im-v-state-of-california-cacd-2022.