January Schofield v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 19, 2025
Docket2:22-cv-05590
StatusUnknown

This text of January Schofield v. County of Los Angeles (January Schofield v. County of Los Angeles) 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
January Schofield v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 JANUARY SCHOFIELD 1700 Fansa Rd. #429 2 Duarte, CA 91010 (661) 369-3206 3 PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER 4 Jon F. Monroy, SBN 51176 Jennifer E. Gysler, SBN 143449 5 MONROY, AVERBUCK & GYSLER 200 N. Westlake Blvd., Ste. 204 6 Westlake Village, CA 91362 (818) 400-4812 7 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS 8 ANGELES; JUDY THOMAS; KAREN LA; WENDY CONTRERAS; JULIET MACIAS; 9 LINDA FLORES; VERONICA BETANCOURT-PEREZ 10 O’HAGAN MEYER LLP 11 ASHLEIGH R. KASPER, SB# 294963 E-Mail: akasper@ohaganmeyer.com 12 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90071 13 Telephone: 213.250.6005 Attorneys for Defendant MARYVALE 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 16 17 JANUARY SCHOFIELD, an Case No. 2:22-cv-05590-JGB (ASx) 18 individual, PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 Plaintiff, 20 vs. 21 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a Trial Date: None Set municipal entity; JUDY THOMAS, 22 individually and in her official capacity as a social worker for the Los Angeles 23 County Department of Children and Family Services; KAREN LA, 24 individually and in her official capacity as a social worker for the Los Angeles 25 County Department of Children and Family Services; WENDY 26 CONTRERAS, individually and in her official capacity as a social worker for 27 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services; JULIET 1 official capacity as a social worker for the Los Angeles County Department of 2 Children and Family Services; LINDA FLORES, individually and in her 3 official capacity as a social worker for the Los Angeles County Department of 4 Children and Family Services; VERONICA BETANCOURT-PAREZ, 5 individually and in her official capacity as a social worker for the Los Angeles 6 County Department of Children and Family Services; MARYVALE, a 7 California Corporation; and DOES 1-15 8 Defendants. 9 10 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 11 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 12 proprietary, or private information, including, but not limited to, production of 13 confidential Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 14 (DCFS) juvenile case files, California juvenile dependency proceedings, and/or other 15 information about minors and others, for which special protection from public 16 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 17 warranted. Accordingly, January Schofield (“Plaintiff”), Defendants County of Los 18 Angeles, Judy Thomas, Karen La, Wendy Contreras, Juliet Macias, Linda Flores, and 19 Veronica Betancourt-Perez (collectively “Defendant County”) and Defendant 20 Maryvale (collectively “the Parties”) hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 21 grant the following Joint Motion for Stipulated Protective Order. This Order does not 22 confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery. The protection 23 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 24 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 25 Further, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, this Protective Order does not entitle the 26 Parties to file confidential information under seal, the Parties must comply with Civil 27 Local Rule 79-5 and with any pertinent orders of the assigned District Judge and 1 1. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the Parties’ 3 representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential 4 records, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 5 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 6 protect information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 7 Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in connection with 8 this action, to address their handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and 9 to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 10 matter. The Parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential 11 without a good faith belief that such information/documents as confidential, non- 12 public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not 13 be part of the public record of this case. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: The instant action: January Schofield v. County of Los Angeles. 16 Et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05590-JGB (AS). 17 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 18 of information or items under this Order. 19 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 20 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 21 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified in the Good Cause 22 Statement. 23 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as the 24 support staff). 25 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 26 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 27 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 2.6 Discovery or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 2 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including 3 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 4 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 7 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 9 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 10 counsel. 11 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 12 other legal entity not named as a Party to the Action. 13 2.10 Outside Counsel for Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 14 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 15 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party and includes support staff. 16 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 17 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 18 support staffs). 19 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 20 Discovery Material in this Action. 21 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 22 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 23 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 24 and their employees and subcontractors. 25 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 26 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 27 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 1 3. SCOPE 2 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as 3 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected 4 Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; 5 and (3) any deposition testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their 6 Counsel that might reveal Protected Material, other than during a court hearing or at 7 trial. 8 Any use of Protected Material during a court hearing or at trial shall be 9 governed by the orders of the presiding judge. This Order does not govern the use of 10 Protected Material during a court hearing or trial. 11 4.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
January Schofield v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/january-schofield-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.