James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 10, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-06812·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

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

Defendants. 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is 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 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. 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 documents to the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important law enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, as well as individual privacy rights of plaintiff and the individual defendants. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: the United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and information consist of materials entitled to the Official Information Privilege. Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include but is not limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email and written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the 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 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. C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 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; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 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

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

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

James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica (James Anthony Humphrey v. City of Santa Monica) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)