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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 5, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-00520·Unknown

Opinion

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Defendants.

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

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen’s Procedures. All deviations or amendments to the model protective order have been red-lined in The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1.2 Good Cause Statement This action involves the County of San Bernardino and members of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. This action is likely to involve the exchange of protected health information (“PHI”), peace officer personnel information, and materials from open investigations consisting of official information for which special protection from public disclosure—and from use for any purpose other than the prosecution of this action—is warranted. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, medical records containing PHI, peace officer personnel records and investigations containing official information, other administrative materials, as well as video recordings, audio recordings, and photographs involving incidents to which law enforcement responded. Defendants contend that the disclosure of the confidential information regarding the individuals may violate those individuals’ privacy rights. Defendants also contend that the disclosure of the information may also jeopardize the security of the County's operations and jeopardize the safety of its peace officers. Defendants may seek information such as Plaintiff’s medical records that Plaintiff believes are highly sensitive, confidential, and are legally protected from disclosure. See Wooden v. Comprehensive Health Mgmt., No. 20-00053 LEK-WRP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101889, at *3 (D. Haw. May 28, 2021) (“[M]edical records are confidential, as recognized under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.”); Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-CV-04375-LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90913, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) (same). Plaintiff contends that the undue disclosure of such information creates a specific risk of embarrassment, emotional harm, and reputational harm. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The Parties agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of resolving any disagreements. The Parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit,encaptioned Kathy Jiron v. County of San Bernardino, et. al. 5:25-cv-00520-JGB(SSCx). 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or mainta

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

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

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) — 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)
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)