James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 10, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-06812
StatusUnknown

This text of James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica (James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica) 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
James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-06812-JLS-GJS Document 26 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:132

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JAMES ANTHONY HUMPHREY Case No. 2:21-cv-06812-JLS-GJS

12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER1 v. 14 CITY OF SANTA MONICA; Honorable Josephine L. Staton 15 JORDAN VARAK; ANDREW SANCHEZ; and DOES 1 through 10, Honorable Gail J. Standish 16 inclusive,

17 Defendants. 18 19 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. Case 2:21-cv-06812-JLS-GJS Document 26 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:133

1 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 2 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 3 under the applicable legal principles. 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve confidential information derived from 6 personnel records, investigatory documents, and other materials subject to privacy 7 protections for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 8 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. It will also likely involve 9 the exchange of medical records concerning plaintiff. Limiting disclosure of these 10 documents to the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, 11 further important law enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of 12 personnel and the public, as well as individual privacy rights of plaintiff and the 13 individual defendants. Such confidential materials and information consist of, 14 among other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the 15 following: the United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California 16 Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; 17 California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 18 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 19 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional law relating to such provisions; and 20 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 21 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 22 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that such 23 confidential materials and information consist of materials entitled to the Official 24 Information Privilege. 25 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include but is 26 not limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email and 27 written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the 28 public in the ordinary course of business, as well as other items subject to the 2 Case 2:21-cv-06812-JLS-GJS Document 26 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:134

1 Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential information with 2 respect to Plaintiff may include medical notes, evaluations, reports, and treatment 3 plans. The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 4 pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 6 of this Order. 5 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 6 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 7 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 8 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 9 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 10 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 11 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 12 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 13 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 14 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 15 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 16 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 17 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 18 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 19 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 20 to file material under seal. 21 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 22 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 23 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 24 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 25 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 26 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 27 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 28 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 3 Case 2:21-cv-06812-JLS-GJS Document 26 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:135

1 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 2 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 3 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 4 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 5 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 6 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 7 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 8 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 9 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 10 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 11 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 12 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 13 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 14 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 15 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 16 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 17 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 18 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 19 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 20 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 21 2. DEFINITIONS 22 2.1 Action: James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Case 23 No. 2:21-cv-06812-JLS-GJS.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-anthony-humphrey-v-city-of-santa-monica-cacd-2022.