Jacqueline McMurtry v. James Farner

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 6, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00869·Unknown

Opinion

JACQUELINE MCMURTRY and Case No. 2:23-cv-00869-DMG-PVCx CHARLEY C. MCMURTRY SR.,, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiffs, ORDER v. JAMES FARNER, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant. Plaintiffs Jacqueline McMurtry and Charley McMurtry Sr., and Defendant Sergeant James Farner, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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 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 to the information or items entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles and as called for in this stipulation by the Parties. 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 and that L.R. 79-5, set 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. Defendant Sergeant James Farner may be producing documents concerning the confidential internal policies of employer, State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which documents are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the security of CHP’s operations, and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. Defendant may also be producing documents that contain personal and confidential information regarding individuals, which information is generally unavailable to the public, including records related to third parties and peace officer personnel records. The disclosure of this information to the public may violate those individuals' privacy rights. Defendant may also be producing video, audio and still photo images related to the incident at issue in this case which is generally unavailable to the public. Additionally, Defendant may be producing investigation reports, which are generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of which could violate individuals' privacy rights and jeopardize the safety of officers. Also, documents to be produced pursuant to subpoena will likely include autopsy photographs. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 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 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 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. Further, at the time of this Stipulation, an investigation into the incident at issue in this case, is being conducted by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, as well as a review by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office as to whether any criminal charges will be levied. Both entities have advocated for the non-disclosure of any and all documents and information pertaining to the investigation and review until after any decision is made by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office as to whether criminal charges will be brought against any officer of the CHP. This position is taken in order to preserve the confidentiality of police investigative files as provided for under Fed. R. Evid. 501, Cal. Evid. Code § 1040(b)(2), and Cty. of Orange v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 759, 765, and to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the investigation and the review by the District Attorney which is in the public interest. In accordance therewith, and in order to comply with discovery obligations in this case, the parties stipulate that any and all documents and information included within the investigation and review will be marked and deemed “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY.” The parties stipulate that any such designations may be revisited after the review and final determination is made by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office. EXCEPT, inclusion of any document within the investigation and review shall not make that document confidential if the original nature and/or source of that document was non- confidential. FURTHER, the designation of any document as confidential (or other similar label) does not exempt it from disclosure under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Jacqueline McMurtry and Charley C. McMurtry Sr. v. James Farner, United States District Court, Central District of California, case number 2:23-cv-00869-DMG-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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY” Information or Items: information, regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained, or tangible things included within and are part of the investigation conducted by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office into the incident at issue in this civil case, and which are or have been provided to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office for review and determination as to whether any criminal charges will be levied concerning the incident at issue in this civil case, as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel, as well as their support staff. 2.6 Designating Party: Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as "CONFIDENTIAL" OR "CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY," 2.7 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. 2.8 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. 2.9 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. 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to thi

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

Jacqueline McMurtry v. James Farner, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Jacqueline McMurtry v. James Farner (Jacqueline McMurtry v. James Farner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.
82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 799 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
County of Orange v. Superior Court
94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 261 (California Court of Appeal, 2000)
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
171 P.3d 1092 (California Supreme Court, 2007)