Jeremy Gene Foy v. Town of Apple Valley

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 15, 2025
Docket5:24-cv-02619
StatusUnknown

This text of Jeremy Gene Foy v. Town of Apple Valley (Jeremy Gene Foy v. Town of Apple Valley) 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
Jeremy Gene Foy v. Town of Apple Valley, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 FUJI. LAW GROUP LLP JOHN M. FUJII, SBN 172718 2| MAHAHDI CORZANO, SBN 254905 2 Park Plaza, Suite 450 Irvine, California 92614 Phone: (52 392-5501 4] Fax: (949) 392-5501 Email: JFujii@FujiiLawGroup.com 5] Email: MCorzano@FujiiLawGroup.com Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 7 SGT. JONATHAN ANDERSEN, CPL. ALEXANDER PANGBUM, DET. KEVIN 8] RIBERICH, DET. MAURICIO RIVAS, DET. DAVID FRATT, DET. EVAN TODD, 9] DEP. DANIEL VALLEJO, DEP. LEVI KERR, DEP. ANDREW SANDERS, DEP. 10] RYAN GRISSOM, AND DEP. JAMES LEE 1] 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15] JEREMY GENE FOY, an individual, CASE NO.: 5:24-cv-02619-KK-SHK 16 Plaintiff, Judge: Kenly Kiya Kato. Magistrate Judge: Shashi H. Kewalramani 17 V. 18 TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, a public STIPULATION AND PROPOSED entity. COUNTY OF SAN. PROTECTIVE ORDER 19] BERNARDINO, a public entity, SERGEANT JONATHAN ANDERSEN, 20] CORPORAL ALEXANDER PANGBUM, DETECTIVE KEVIN RIBERICH, 21] DETECTIVE MAURICIO RIVAS, DETECTIVE DAVID FRATT, 22 DETECTIVE EVAN TODD, DEPUTY DANIEL VALLEJO, DEPUTY LEVI 23 KERR, DEPUTY ANDREW SANDERS, DEPUTY RYAN GRISSOM, and 24] DEPUTY JAMES LEE, individuals; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 25 26 Defendants. 27 28

PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Defendants COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SGT. JONATHAN 3 ANDERSEN, CPL. ALEXANDER PANGBUM, DET. KEVIN RIBERICH, DET. 4|MAURICIO RIVAS, DET. DAVID FRATT, DET. EVAN TODD, DEP. DANIEL 5] VALLEJO, DEP. LEVI KERR, DEP. ANDREW SANDERS, DEP. RYAN GRISSOM, AND DEP. JAMES LEE (collectively, “Defendants”) contend that discovery in this 7| action (the “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, Defendants Plaintiff JEREMY GENE FOY (‘Plaintiff’), with Plaintiff and Defendants 11}collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as the “Party,” hereby 12||stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (the 13||“Protective Order”). The Parties acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 15]affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 16||that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 This Action involves records of detention, arrest, search warrant, and investigations 19] performed by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and its personnel, agents, employees, and/or other third parties contracted with the County. Defendants assert the underlying incident, and evidence thereof, may involve the identity of personnel, 22||third-party witnesses, and others, that is private or confidential in nature. Further, Defendants anticipate that Plaintiff will seek confidential documents in this matter which 24\|may include, but are not limited to, personnel records of law enforcement officers, 25]}employment records, and confidential information from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (including potential information implicating privacy of third 27| parties) not generally available to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 28|| protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or _1 of 13 _

1}common law. Should this information (photos, videos, personnel records, private 2information of witnesses, etc.) be disclosed without the protection of this Protective 3]}Order, and open access to the information be allowed, the privacy and safety of those involved in this Action, and other law enforcement matters, could be placed at risk. 5 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, facilitate the prompt resolution 6] of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect information the 7|Parties are entitled to keep confidential, ensure the Parties are permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such material in preparation for trial and address their handling at the of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information justified in this matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be 11] designated as “confidential” for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 13||there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record in this Action. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 15 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 17|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 19]/under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 20|| proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 21||cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County o Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 23/1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 2411577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 27|\to file under seal. The Parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by _% of 13 _

1'declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 2||confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a 3|| party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not 4lonly good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly 5||tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 6] ’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, 7|\document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 10] application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed 12]under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 14] otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks 15||to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 17}/4. DEFINITIONS 18 4.1 Action. This pending federal lawsuit entitled JEREMY GENE FOY v. TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, et al. case number 5:24-cv-02619-KK-SHK. 20 4.2 Challenging Party. A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 21]/information or items under this Protective Order. 22 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Information (regardless of how was or is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Fed. R. Civ. P.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jeremy Gene Foy v. Town of Apple Valley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremy-gene-foy-v-town-of-apple-valley-cacd-2025.