Kathy Jiron v. County of San Bernardino; Gabrielle Leos; Austin Decoud; Does 1 to 10, inclusive

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 5, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00520
StatusUnknown

This text of Kathy Jiron v. County of San Bernardino; Gabrielle Leos; Austin Decoud; Does 1 to 10, inclusive (Kathy Jiron v. County of San Bernardino; Gabrielle Leos; Austin Decoud; Does 1 to 10, inclusive) 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
Kathy Jiron v. County of San Bernardino; Gabrielle Leos; Austin Decoud; Does 1 to 10, inclusive, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Eugenia Bagdassarian, State Bar No. 334898 E-Mail: eugenia@triallit.com 2 E-Service: service@triallit.com TRIAL LIT ATTORNEYS, APC 3 600 West Broadway, Suite 235 Glendale, CA 91204 4 Telephone: (818) 584-3500 Facsimile: (877)565-0213 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, KATHY JIRON 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 KATHY JIRON, an Individual, Case No. 5:25-cv-00520-JGB(SSCx) 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 12 ORDER1 v. 13 [Assigned to Hon. Jesus G. Bernal] COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; 14 GABRIELLE LEOS, an individual; [DISCOVERY MATTER] AUSTIN DECOUD, an individual; and 15 DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

16 Defendants.

19 1. INTRODUCTION 20 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 21 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 22 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 23 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 24 stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 25

26 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen’s Procedures. All 27 deviations or amendments to the model protective order have been red-lined in 1 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 2 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 3 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 4 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 5 1.2 Good Cause Statement 6 This action involves the County of San Bernardino and members of the San 7 Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. This action is likely to involve the 8 exchange of protected health information (“PHI”), peace officer personnel 9 information, and materials from open investigations consisting of official 10 information for which special protection from public disclosure—and from use for 11 any purpose other than the prosecution of this action—is warranted. Such 12 confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, medical 13 records containing PHI, peace officer personnel records and investigations 14 containing official information, other administrative materials, as well as video 15 recordings, audio recordings, and photographs involving incidents to which law 16 enforcement responded. 17 Defendants contend that the disclosure of the confidential information 18 regarding the individuals may violate those individuals’ privacy rights. Defendants 19 also contend that the disclosure of the information may also jeopardize the security 20 of the County's operations and jeopardize the safety of its peace officers. 21 Defendants may seek information such as Plaintiff’s medical records that 22 Plaintiff believes are highly sensitive, confidential, and are legally protected from 23 disclosure. See Wooden v. Comprehensive Health Mgmt., No. 20-00053 LEK-WRP, 24 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101889, at *3 (D. Haw. May 28, 2021) (“[M]edical records 25 are confidential, as recognized under the Health Insurance Portability and 26 Accountability Act of 1996.”); Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-CV-04375-LHK, 2020 U.S. 27 Dist. LEXIS 90913, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) (same). Plaintiff contends that 1 the undue disclosure of such information creates a specific risk of embarrassment, 2 emotional harm, and reputational harm. 3 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 4 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 5 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 6 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 7 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 8 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 9 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 10 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 11 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 12 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 13 The Parties agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to 14 preserve the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of 15 resolving any disagreements. 16 The Parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 17 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 18 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, 19 the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 20 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or 21 privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such 22 Court Order. 23 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties 24 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 25 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 26 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards 27 that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 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 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of 5 Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon 6 v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 7 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 8 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 9 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. 10 The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 11 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 12 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 13 confidential, privileged, or otherwise 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 16 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 17 See Pintos v. Pac. 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 19 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 20 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 21 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 22 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 23 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 24 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 26 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 27 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 1 2.

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)
Warren v. Steer
5 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1886)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kathy Jiron v. County of San Bernardino; Gabrielle Leos; Austin Decoud; Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kathy-jiron-v-county-of-san-bernardino-gabrielle-leos-austin-decoud-cacd-2025.