Jacqueline McMurtry v. James Farner

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 6, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00869
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 JACQUELINE MCMURTRY and Case No. 2:23-cv-00869-DMG-PVCx 14 CHARLEY C. MCMURTRY SR.,, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 Plaintiffs, ORDER 16 v. 17 JAMES FARNER, and DOES 1 18 through 10, inclusive, 19 Defendant. 20 21 Plaintiffs Jacqueline McMurtry and Charley McMurtry Sr., and Defendant 22 Sergeant James Farner, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate 23 and agree as follows: 24 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve 26 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 27 28 1 Protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 2 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 3 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 4 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 5 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 6 the Protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends to the information 7 or items entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles and as 8 called for in this stipulation by the Parties. 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 11 under seal and that L.R. 79-5, set forth the procedures that must be followed and the 12 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file 13 material under seal. 14 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 Defendant Sergeant James Farner may be producing documents concerning 16 the confidential internal policies of employer, State of California, acting by and 17 through the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which documents are generally 18 unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the 19 security of CHP’s operations, and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. Defendant 20 may also be producing documents that contain personal and confidential 21 information regarding individuals, which information is generally unavailable to the 22 public, including records related to third parties and peace officer personnel 23 records. The disclosure of this information to the public may violate those 24 individuals' privacy rights. Defendant may also be producing video, audio and still 25 photo images related to the incident at issue in this case which is generally 26 unavailable to the public. Additionally, Defendant may be producing investigation 27 reports, which are generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of which could 28 violate individuals' privacy rights and jeopardize the safety of officers. Also, 1 documents to be produced pursuant to subpoena will likely include autopsy 2 photographs. 3 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 4 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 5 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 6 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 7 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 8 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 9 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 10 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 11 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 12 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 13 Further, at the time of this Stipulation, an investigation into the incident at 14 issue in this case, is being conducted by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s 15 Department, as well as a review by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's 16 Office as to whether any criminal charges will be levied. Both entities have 17 advocated for the non-disclosure of any and all documents and information 18 pertaining to the investigation and review until after any decision is made by the 19 San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office as to whether criminal charges 20 will be brought against any officer of the CHP. This position is taken in order to 21 preserve the confidentiality of police investigative files as provided for under Fed. 22 R. Evid. 501, Cal. Evid. Code § 1040(b)(2), and Cty. of Orange v. Superior Court 23 (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 759, 765, and to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the 24 investigation and the review by the District Attorney which is in the public interest. 25 In accordance therewith, and in order to comply with discovery obligations in this 26 case, the parties stipulate that any and all documents and information included 27 within the investigation and review will be marked and deemed 28 “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY.” The parties stipulate that 1 any such designations may be revisited after the review and final determination is 2 made by the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office. EXCEPT, inclusion 3 of any document within the investigation and review shall not make that document 4 confidential if the original nature and/or source of that document was non- 5 confidential. FURTHER, the designation of any document as confidential (or other 6 similar label) does not exempt it from disclosure under the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure. 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: Jacqueline McMurtry and Charley C. McMurtry Sr. v. James 10 Farner, United States District Court, Central District of California, case number 11 2:23-cv-00869-DMG-PVC. 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 13 of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 "CONFIDENTIAL" Information or Items: information, regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained, or tangible things that qualify for 16 Protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 17 Statement. 18 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY” Information or 19 Items: information, regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained, or 20 tangible things included within and are part of the investigation conducted by the 21 San Bernardino County Sheriff's Office into the incident at issue in this civil case, 22 and which are or have been provided to the San Bernardino County District 23 Attorney's Office for review and determination as to whether any criminal charges 24 will be levied concerning the incident at issue in this civil case, as specified above 25 in the Good Cause Statement. 26 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel, as well as their 27 support staff. 28 1 2.6 Designating Party: Party or Non-Party that designates information or 2 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 3 "CONFIDENTIAL" OR "CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY," 4 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 5 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained including, 6 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things, that are produced or 7 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 8 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 9 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 10 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 11 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jacqueline McMurtry v. James Farner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacqueline-mcmurtry-v-james-farner-cacd-2023.