Joshua Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 21, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-00289
StatusUnknown

This text of Joshua Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles (Joshua Sanchez 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
Joshua Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

2 3 4 5

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Joshua Sanchez 11 Case No.: 2:22-cv-00289-DMG-GJS Plaintiff, 12 v. [PROPOSED] JOINT STIPULATED 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER County of Los Angeles et al 14 NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE Defendant. COURT TO GOOD CAUSE 15 STATEMENT

16 17

18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 21 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 22 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 23 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 24 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 25 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 26 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 27 legal principles. 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, a party seeking 3 to protect information from discovery or dissemination must show good cause. 4 This action is likely to involve private confidential information relating to peace 5 officer personnel records and proprietary information for which special protection from 6 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than the prosecution of this action 7 is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 8 among other things, relevant portions of Defendant’s confidential peace officer personnel 9 records, which include information implicating the privacy rights of third parties. 10 Such information may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 11 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 12 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 13 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 14 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 15 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 16 their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective 17 order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 18 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing 19 be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 20 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of 21 the public record of this case. 22 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 23 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 24 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 25 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 26 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 27 material under seal. 1 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 2 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 3 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 4 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 5 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 6 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 7 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 8 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 9 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 10 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 11 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 12 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 13 protectable—constitute good cause. 14 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 15 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 16 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 17 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 18 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 19 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 20 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 21 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 22 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 23 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 24 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 25 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 26 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 27 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: Joshua Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles, et. al., 2:22-cv- 3 00289-DMG-GJS. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 5 of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 7 how it is generated, recorded, stored, or maintained), or items in any medium (i.e., 8 electronic, digital, or tangible things) that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 9 of Civil Procedure 26(c), that the party designating the information as confidential 10 (the “Designating Party”) reasonably believes to fall within the following definition: 11 Peace Officer Personnel records and other information protected from disclosure 12 under California and Federal law, or where disclosure of that information would be 13 highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public concern. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 15 support staff). 16 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 17 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 18 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 20 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 21 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 22 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 23 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 25 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 26 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 27 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 1 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Joshua Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-sanchez-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.