Jessy Duenas Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 20, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-03937
StatusUnknown

This text of Jessy Duenas Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (Jessy Duenas Hernandez 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
Jessy Duenas Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 JESSY DUENAS HERNANDEZ No. 2:21-CV-03937-MWF (AFMx) 13 DISCOVERY MATTER 14 Plaintiff, v. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 15 PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING PRODUCTION OF 16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, by and “CONFIDENTIAL” through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY INFORMATION 17 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;

18 DEPUTY VILANOVA; DEPUTY [Assigned to Hon. Michael W. SANDOVAL; DEPUTY GERMAN Fitzgerald, Courtroom 5A] 19 ZAMBRANO; DEPUTY RAUL [Discovery Document: Referred to the 20 ALVAREZ; DOES 1-25, inclusive, Hon. Alexander F. MacKinnon, Magistrate Judge] 21 Defendants

23 I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 24 II. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or 25 private information for which special protection from public disclosure 26 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this action may be 27 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 1 Court to enter the following [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order 2 (hereafter “this Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does 3 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 4 discovery; and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 5 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 6 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. GOOD 7 CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to 9 personnel records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which 10 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 11 prosecution of this action is warranted. Additionally, this action may involve other 12 proprietary information concerning police practices and security protocols for which 13 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 14 prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to 15 the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important 16 law enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the 17 public, as well as the privacy rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants, and third 18 party witnesses. Such confidential materials and information consists of, among 19 other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: 20 the United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, 21 Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California 22 Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043, et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 23 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 24 104-191, decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise 25 generally unavailable to the public; or which may be privileged or otherwise 26 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 27 or common law. Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and 1 Confidential Information with respect to the Defendants may include but is 2 not limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email and 3 written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the 4 public in the ordinary course of business; as well as other items subject to the 5 Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential Information with 6 respect to the Plaintiff may include but is not limited to: email and written 7 correspondence records; and psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, 8 and treatment plans. 9 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 10 pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 11 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information; to facilitate the prompt 12 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials; to adequately 13 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential; to ensure that the 14 parties are permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in 15 conduct of trial; to address their handling at the end of the litigation; and serve the 16 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 17 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 18 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 19 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner; and there is good cause 20 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 21 III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 22 SEAL 23 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 24 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 25 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 26 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 27 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 1 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. Kamakana v. City and 2 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 3 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 4 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 5 require good cause showing, and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 6 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 7 respect to material that a party seeks to file under seal). The parties’ mere 8 designation of material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission 9 of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be 10 filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 11 constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to dispositive 12 motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must 13 be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific 14 interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 15 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 17 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 18 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 19 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 20 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 21 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 22 IV. DEFINITIONS 23 4.1 Action: Jessy Duenas Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, et al., 24 Case No. 2:21-cv-03937-MWF (AFMx). 25 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 26 of information or items under this Order. 27 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 1 things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and 2 as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 4 their support staff).

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)
Jessy Duenas Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessy-duenas-hernandez-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2021.