Juan Molina v. Ralph Diaz

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 29, 2024·No. 5:20-cv-00518·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 JUAN MOLINA, 5:20-cv-00518-SVW-AS 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 ORDER v. 15 16 E. NUNEZ, et al., 17 Defendants. 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 21 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 22 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 23 grant the following Joint Motion for Stipulated Protective Order (“Stipulated 24 Protective Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 25 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 26 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 27 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 28 1 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 2 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 3 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 4 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 5 the court to file material under seal. 6 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 This action is likely to involve materials which concerns or relates to the 8 processes, operations or work of the California Department of Corrections and 9 Rehabilitation and its employees and agents (collectively “CDCR”), the disclosure 10 of which may have the effect of causing harm or endangering the safety of CDCR 11 staff, inmates, or third persons. Disclosure will also undermine the ability of 12 CDCR to conduct investigations. Additionally, Plaintiff is currently in CDCR 13 custody, and providing him access to certain sensitive information creates safety 14 and security concerns. Such confidential materials and information consist of, 15 among other things, information about confidential informants, prison procedures 16 for investigating the introduction of contraband, prison procedure for conducting 17 targeted cell searches, prison procedures for investigating inmates accused of 18 misconduct, and other information that is only available to staff on a need-to-know 19 basis, not provided to inmates, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 20 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 21 common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 22 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 23 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 24 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 25 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 26 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 27 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 28 1 designated as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only for tactical reasons and that 2 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 3 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 4 of the public record of this case. 5 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 6 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 8 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 9 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 10 to file material under seal. 11 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 12 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 13 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 14 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. 15 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony 16 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 17 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 18 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 19 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 20 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 21 does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 22 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 23 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 25 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 26 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 27 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 28 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 1 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 2 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 3 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 4 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 5 declaration. 6 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 7 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 8 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 9 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 10 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 11 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 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 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 21 their support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 23 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 24 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 26 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 27 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 28 1 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 3 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 4 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 5 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 6 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 7 counsel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Juan Molina v. Ralph Diaz, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Juan Molina v. Ralph Diaz (Juan Molina v. Ralph Diaz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)