Jovanna Silva v. City of El Monte Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 8, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-00197
StatusUnknown

This text of Jovanna Silva v. City of El Monte Police Department (Jovanna Silva v. City of El Monte Police Department) 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
Jovanna Silva v. City of El Monte Police Department, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-00197-MCS-PD Document 78 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:296

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 JOVANNA SILVA, an individual, ) Case No.: 2:21-CV-00197-MCS-PD 13 ) Hon. Mark C. Scarsi 14 Plaintiff, ) Crtrm. 9C ) 15 vs. ) DISCOVERY MATTER ) 16 CITY OF EL MONTE POLICE ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING 17 DEARTMENT, a local law enforcement ) PRODUCTION OF entity; POLICE CHIEF DAVID R. ) “CONFIDENTIAL” 18 REYNOSO, an individual; DETECTIVE ) INFORMATION JACOB BURSE, an individual; ) 19 SERGEANT MARK SNOOK, an ) [Discovery Document: Referred to the individual; DETECTIVE RENE ) 20 Hon. Patricia Donahue, Magistrate FLORES, an individual; DETECTIVE ) Judge] 21 ANDREW AVILA, an individual; ) DETECTIVE ROGER SARDINA, an ) 22 individual; DETECTIVE CLAYTON ) DURAN, an individual; CITY OF EL ) 23 MONTE, a local California municipality; ) 24 JACKSON CHOW, an individual; and ) DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, ) 25 ) Defendants. ) 26

28 Case 2:21-cv-00197-MCS-PD Document 78 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:297

1 I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or 3 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 4 for any purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted. Accordingly, 5 the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 6 [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order (hereafter “this Order”). The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 8 responses to discovery; and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 9 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 10 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to 13 personnel records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which 14 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 15 prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to 16 the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important 17 law enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the 18 public, as well as the privacy rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants, and third 19 party witnesses. Such confidential materials and information consists of, among 20 other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: 21 the United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, 22 Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California 23 Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043, et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 24 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 25 104-191, decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise 26 generally unavailable to the public; or which may be privileged or otherwise 27 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 28 or common law. Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and -2- Case 2:21-cv-00197-MCS-PD Document 78 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:298

1 information consists of materials entitled to the Official Information Privilege. 2 Confidential Information with respect to the Defendants may include but is 3 not limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email and 4 written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the 5 public in the ordinary course of business; as well as other items subject to the 6 Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential Information with 7 respect to the Plaintiff may include but is not limited to: email and written 8 correspondence records; law enforcement records related to Plaintiff; and 9 psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, and treatment plans. 10 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 11 pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 12 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information; to facilitate the prompt 13 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials; to adequately 14 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential; to ensure that the 15 parties are permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in 16 conduct of trial; to address their handling at the end of the litigation; and serve the 17 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 18 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 19 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 20 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner; and there is good cause 21 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 22 III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 23 SEAL 24 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 25 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 26 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 27 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 28 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial -3- Case 2:21-cv-00197-MCS-PD Document 78 Filed 02/08/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:299

1 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 2 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. Kamakana v. City and 3 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 4 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 5 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 6 require good cause showing, and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 7 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 8 respect to material that a party seeks to file under seal). The parties’ mere 9 designation of material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission 10 of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be 11 filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 12 constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to dispositive 13 motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must 14 be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific 15 interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 16 (9th Cir. 2010). 17 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 18 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 19 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 20 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 21 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 22 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 23 IV. DEFINITIONS 24 4.1 Action: Jovanna Silva v. City of El Monte Police Department, et al., 25 Case No. 2:21-CV-00197-MCS-PD.

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)
Jovanna Silva v. City of El Monte Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jovanna-silva-v-city-of-el-monte-police-department-cacd-2022.