John Doe v. Saige Star Rowley

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 22, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-01387
StatusUnknown

This text of John Doe v. Saige Star Rowley (John Doe v. Saige Star Rowley) 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
John Doe v. Saige Star Rowley, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 || BLANK ROME LLP Jeffrey Rosenfeld (SBN 221625) 2 jeffrey.rosenfeld@blankrome.com 3 || 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 4 || Telephone: (424) 239-3400 g Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff John Doe 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN DOE, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-01387-FMO-RAO 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 12 ORDER 13 |v. Judge: Hon. Rozella A. Oliver 14 io. Edward R. Roybal Federal SAIGE STAR ROWLEY, an individual, Building and United States 15 Courthouse, Los Angeles Defendant. Courtroom 590, 5th Floor 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ONNSON1R2 NNNN1/1f2ecm%weco 4

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 5 || warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 || grant the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The parties acknowledge 7 || that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses tc 8 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 || under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This is an action filed for damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 6851, which 13 || alleges the unauthorized disclosure and publication of intimate images. Discovery 14 |} in this action will therefore include intimate images and videos and other materials 15 || for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 16 || other than this action is warranted, including materials and information previously 17 || ordered by the Court to be filed under seal. [See, ECF 43.] Consistent with that 18 || previous order, 15 U.S.C. § 6581(b)(3)(B), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), the Court 19 || has good cause for the issuance of this Order. 20 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 21 || resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 22 || protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 23 || parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 24 || and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 25 || serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 26 || matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 27 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 28

1 || faith belief that there is good cause as to why it should not be part of the public 2 || record of this case. 3 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 4 PROCEDURE 5 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 6 || Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 7 || under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 8 || and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 9 || to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 10 || of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 11 || dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 12 || Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1 172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 13 || Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 14 |) Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 15 || stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 16 || good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 17 || justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 18 || file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 19 ||as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 20 || declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 21 || confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 23 || then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 24 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 25 || protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 667-79 (9th Cir. 26 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 27 || or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 28 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing

I |} order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 2 || under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable ir 4 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 5 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 6 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 7 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 8 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 The foregoing is not intended to contradict ECF 43, which provides 10 || additional orders regarding the filing of matters under seal in this action. 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit entitled John Doe v. Saige Star 13 || Rowley, 2:25-cv-01387-FMO-RAO. 14 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 15 || designation of information or items under this Order. 16 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 17 || how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 || the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL □ ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 21 |/ Items: Extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” which would 22 || create a substantial risk of serious harm if it were disclosed to another Party or Non- 23 || Party. 24 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record (as well as their support staff). 2.6 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” or “CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 28

2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardles: 2 || of 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 4 || or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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)
Boakai v. Gonzales
447 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John Doe v. Saige Star Rowley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-doe-v-saige-star-rowley-cacd-2025.