James Medina v. Ventura County Sheriff's Department; Ventura County

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 30, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-06274·Unknown

Opinion

PAUL B. BEACH, State Bar No. 166265 pbeach@lbaclaw.com JAMES S. EICHER, JR., State Bar No. 213796 jeicher@lbaclaw.com ROCCO ZAMBITO, JR., State Bar No. 306115 rzambito@lbaclaw.com 150 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 660 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone No. (818) 545-1925 Attorneys for Defendants County of Ventura and Ventura County Sheriff’s Office (erroneously sued and served as Ventura County and Ventura County Sheriff’s Department)

JAMES MEDINA, an individual, ) Case No. 2:25-cv-06274-SVW-SSC ) Plaintiffs, ) Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. ) Christensen vs. ) ) DEPARTMENT, a public entity; ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE VENTURA COUNTY; a public entity; ) ORDER1 DOES 1-10, individuals, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Complaint filed: July 9, 2025 ) )

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 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

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen’s Procedures as 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 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1.2 Good Cause Statement. The parties may produce certain documents, items, materials, law enforcement information, medical records, personnel information, and other information in this case that may contain sensitive and confidential information that derives actual or potential value from not being generally known to the public, are the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain their confidentiality, and for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such records include materials relating to the investigation of the incident at issue, material relating to or regarding the personnel files and/or records of County of Ventura employees, medical records, photographs, material, and information relating to incidents involving Plaintiff containing sensitive or private information, including regarding third parties, County of Ventura Wellpath policies, procedures, manuals, and/or training materials which are not publicly available, Internal Affairs materials and information, sensitive and private information regarding third parties, and other video recordings, photographs, audio recordings, materials and information 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, and any other materials and information the parties agree believe need special attention from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. This action is also expected to include the use of sensitive information and recordings relating to Plaintiff’s physical health, mental health, substance use, and treatment, as well as criminal records involving Plaintiff. Such materials and information may implicate the privacy interests of the parties and are properly protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). Furthermore, Plaintiff is seeking and Defendants may produce, among other things, internal, security sensitive, third party and law enforcement private and confidential information, administrative, personnel and institutional documents, which contain sensitive information that Defendants believe need special protection from public disclosure. Defendants contend that the documents identified in this Protective Order, which Defendants believe in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which Defendants maintain as strictly confidential and are 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, are therefore entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. Defendants further contend that such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, documents and/or writings protected by the Official Information Privilege, the right to privacy guaranteed by in the Federal Constitution, First Amendment, California Constitution, Article I, Section I, and various California Government, Penal, and Evidence Code section, as well as 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. 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. 1.3 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 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 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., 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 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, p

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

James Medina v. Ventura County Sheriff's Department; Ventura County, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

James Medina v. Ventura County Sheriff's Department; Ventura County (James Medina v. Ventura County Sheriff's Department; Ventura County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)