Jennifer Gerrie v. County of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 22, 2020
Docket5:19-cv-01435
StatusUnknown

This text of Jennifer Gerrie v. County of San Bernardino (Jennifer Gerrie v. County of San Bernardino) 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
Jennifer Gerrie v. County of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 CYNTHIA G. LAWRENCE (SBN 148927) TAHMINA YASSINE-MORROW (SBN 285542) 2 SIMS, LAWRENCE & ARRUTI 2261 Lava Ridge Court 3 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 797-8881 4 Facsimile: (916) 253-1544 Email: clawrence@sims-law.net 5 tahmina@sims-law.net

6 Attorney for Defendants CALIFORNIA FAMILY LIFE CENTER; 7 LORI REYNOLDS, LILLIAN GARCIA; 8 BIANCA BLACK 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DIVISION – CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 JENNIFER GERRIE, individually and as Case No. 5:19-cv-01435 – JGB (SPx) MAKAYLA MASSEY’S Successor In Hon. Jesus G. Bernal 13 Interest, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 Plaintiff, ORDER

15 vs. [FRCP, Rule 26(c)]

16 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, TRELEISHA FINCH, CHRISTA Complaint Filed: August 2, 2019 17 BANTON, MICHAEL MASSEY and Second Amended Complaint Filed: Does 1 to xx, Inclusive, February 18, 2020 18 Trial Date: August 3, 2021 Defendants. 19 AND RELATED COUNTER-ACTION 20 21 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY 22 I. GENERAL 23 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this ACTION is likely to involve production of 25 confidential, proprietary, or private information and/or juvenile case files for 26 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 27 purpose other than prosecuting and defending this litigation may be warranted. 1 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 2 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 3 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 4 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 5 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 6 acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 7 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets 8 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 9 when a PARTY seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 Whereas, in the interests of facilitating discovery by the parties litigating this 12 ACTION and of protecting the parties’ and non-parties’ CONFIDENTIAL 13 INFORMATION from improper disclosure or use, Plaintiff Jennifer Gerrie and 14 Defendants County of San Bernardino, Treleisha Finch, Christa Banton, Michael 15 Massey, California Family Life Center, Bianca Black, Lori Reynolds and Lillian 16 Garcia, (collectively, “PARTIES”) have agreed to provide access to relevant 17 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION subject to the provisions set forth below. 18 Whereas, many of the MATERIALS being sought through discovery in the 19 above-captioned action are normally kept confidential by the PARTIES. The 20 MATERIALS that may be exchanged throughout the course of the litigation 21 between the PARTIES may contain sensitive, personal information, including 22 information about children, that is normally deemed confidential, or may be 23 confidential personnel documents of a municipal or governmental agency. The 24 PARTIES have agreed to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order (“Order”) 25 in this ACTION to facilitate the document production and disclosure of relevant 26 information, and protect the respective interests of the parties in highly sensitive and 27 personal information. This Order shall remain in effect unless modified pursuant to the terms contained in this Order. 1 Whereas, this Order authorizes the parties, through their attorneys, 2 employees, or agents, to disclose and produce to COUNSEL for all parties to this 3 ACTION, including claims adjusters and managers, records, which may include, 4 Juvenile Court records, medical records, mental health records, law enforcement 5 records, investigation records, and other confidential or sensitive records, files, and 6 information from the Child & Family Services, County of San Bernardino, and other 7 governmental and nongovernmental entities pertaining to Makayla Massey, her 8 minor brother M.M., and/or the minors located at the California Family Life Center 9 (“CFLC”) that may be produced during discovery during this matter will be subject 10 to this Order and the applicable Federal Rules and federal case law. Law 11 enforcement records, including juvenile crime investigations and reports, police 12 personnel records, employment records, and/or an individual’s training transcripts 13 and records are subject to this Order. Defendants' and/or Social worker records, 14 including personnel records, employment records, and/or an individual’s training 15 transcripts and records are subject to this Order. 16 The PARTIES agree that certain documents that may be requested for 17 disclosure through discovery need an order from the court prior to production, such 18 as Juvenile Court records. The Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized that in a 19 civil rights action, the district court has jurisdiction to order disclosure of a juvenile 20 court file notwithstanding state law. Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832, 835 (9th 21 Cir. 2003). Although federal courts have found that Welfare & Institutions Code 22 section 827 is not binding in federal lawsuits, federal courts should still weigh the 23 needs of the case versus the State interest in and policy considerations of keeping 24 the contents of the juvenile case file confidential when determining whether records 25 should be disclosed in the federal action. Estate of Maldonado v. Sec’y of the Cal. 26 Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:06CV02696-MCE/GGH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27 91084, at 13-17 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007); Van Horn v Hornbeak, No. 1:08CV1622 LJO DLB, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147669, at 10-13 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010); Doe 1 No. 59 v. Santa Rose City Sch., No. 3:16-CV-012560WHO, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2 29126, at 3-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017). 3 Plaintiff and Defendants believe that the juvenile records and files as to 4 Makayla Massey are highly relevant to the instant action, and there is a legitimate 5 need for them for both Plaintiff and Defendants in presenting their case to this court. 6 Further, Makayla Massey’s Juvenile Case File cannot be reasonably obtained from 7 any source other than the County of San Bernardino and the Juvenile Court. 8 Upon good cause having been shown, the Court ORDERS, pursuant to 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), as follows: 10 II. DEFINITIONS 11 1. The following Definitions shall apply in this Order: 12 (a) ACTION: Jennifer Gerrie v. County of San Bernardino et al., 13 CASE NO. 5:19-cv-01435 JGB (SPx) 14 (b) The term “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” will mean and 15 include any and all documents of any nature whatsoever which contain or disclose 16 confidential or highly sensitive information, including specific identifying 17 information of minors, that are marked as Confidential by any PARTY to which the 18 document belongs, or is otherwise designated as Confidential, as set forth herein. 19 The term “Confidential Documents” will mean and include any and all documents 20 of any nature whatsoever which contain or disclose confidential personnel and/or an 21 individual’s training information maintained by a governmental or municipal 22 agency.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jennifer Gerrie v. County of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennifer-gerrie-v-county-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2020.