Jane Doe v. County of Orange

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 23, 2020
Docket8:20-cv-00322
StatusUnknown

This text of Jane Doe v. County of Orange (Jane Doe v. County of Orange) 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
Jane Doe v. County of Orange, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JANE DOE 11 Plaintiff, Case No. SACV 20-00322-JWH (GJS) 12 v. 13 COUNTY OF ORANGE; DON 14 BARNES; WILLIAM BAKER; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER JOE BALICKI; MARK 15 STICHTER; and DOES 1-10, inclusive 16 Defendants. 17 18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 23 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 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 1 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve information for which special protection from 5 6 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action 7 is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist 8 of, among other things, training information and evaluations contained in the 9 10 personnel files of County Defendants or any other County deputy which is 11 confidential and has not been made public, including any and all citizen’s 12 complaints and/or complaints, reviews, or discipline initiated by other law 13 14 enforcement personnel, information contained in the investigation reports into civil 15 rights violations, training and evaluations, which are confidential and have not been 16 made public; information regarding the layout, dimensions, measurements, 17 18 organization, and staffing of the Women’s Central Jail (“WCJ”) located at 44 Civic 19 Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92703; identifying and personal information of 20 21 Plaintiff, County Defendants and employees of WCJ including but not limited to: 22 name, date of birth, phone number, home address, personal email address, and 23 present and former employers; confidential and non-public policies and procedures 24 25 of the WCJ that if made public may compromise the safety of personnel and inmates 26 at WCJ; and Plaintiff’s medical and financial information. The release of such 27 information raises issue of personal and public safety. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 1 2 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 3 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 4 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 5 6 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 7 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 8 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 9 10 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 11 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 12 should not be part of the public record of this case. 13 14 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 15 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 16 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 17 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 21 to file material under seal. 22 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 23 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 24 25 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 26 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 27 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 1 2 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 3 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 4 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 5 6 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 7 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 8 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 9 10 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 11 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 12 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 13 14 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 15 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 16 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 17 18 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 19 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 20 21 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 22 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 23 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 24 25 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 26 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 27 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 1 2 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 5 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 7 designation of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 9 10 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 11 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 12 the Good Cause Statement. 13 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 15 their support staff). 16 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 17 18 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 19 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 22 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 23 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 24 25 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 /// 27 /// 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 1 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 3 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 6 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 7 counsel. 8 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 9 10 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Jane Doe v. County of Orange, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-doe-v-county-of-orange-cacd-2020.