Keisha Morehead v. City of Oxnard

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 26, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-07689
StatusUnknown

This text of Keisha Morehead v. City of Oxnard (Keisha Morehead v. City of Oxnard) 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
Keisha Morehead v. City of Oxnard, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 4|21-cv-07689-DOC-ADS Document 30 Filed 04/26/22 Pagelof15 Page #:113

1 || David C. Moore, Esq. (State Bar No. 156114) 7 || Caroline M. Park, Esq. (State Bar No. 334008) COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 3 ||790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 4 ||Pasadena, CA 91101 (626) 243-1100 — FAX (626) 243-1111 3 ||Email: dmoore@cellp.law 6 ||Email: cpark@ccllp.law 7 || Attorneys for Defendants g_ ||CITY OF OXNARD, OFFICER LEAH CASTELLANO, AND OFFICER KEVIN FESSLER 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 || KEISHA MOREHEAD, CASE NO. 21-cv-07689-DOC-(ADSx) [Assigned to Hon. David O. Carter — 14 Plaintiffs, Courtroom 9D] 15 [DISCOVERY MATTER] Magistrate ig Ee Judge Autumn D. Spaeth 17 ||CITY OF OXNARD, OXNARD STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER 18 |}LEAH CASTELLANO IN HER 19 || LNDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, OFFICER KEVIN epg,

31 || AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY: AND rial Date: one DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 22 33 Defendants. 24 25 || TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 26 |] /// 27 |W /// 28 |] /// Couns coun |) 22562 CA 91107 Fax 269-1111 r STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2|21-cv-07689-DOC-ADS Document 30 Filed 04/26/22 Page2of15 Page 1ID#:114

1 |]1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 4 lor private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 5 || for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 6 ||the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 7 ||Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 8 || protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 9 || from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 10 || entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 11 || acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 12 || does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal: Civil Local Rule 79-5 13 |!sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 14 || when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 12 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 The case arises from an alleged use of force between Plaintiff KEISHA 17 || MOREHEAD (‘Plaintiff’) and Officers employed by Defendant CITY OF OXNARD 18 || (“City”) that occurred during Plaintiffs arrest on September 28, 2019. Plaintiff alleges 19 || Officer Leah Castellano, Officer Kevin Fessler, and the City violated her constitutional 20 ||rights through the use of excessive force in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 This action is likely to involve materials protected by California Evidence Code 22 ||section 1040, California Code of Civil Procedure section 129, California Penal Code 23 || section 632, the official information privilege or other state or federal statutes, court rules, 24 ||case decisions, or common law prohibiting dissemination and disclosure. Additionally, 25 ||this action may involve other proprietary information concerning police practices and 26 ||security protocols for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 27 || any purpose other than prosecution of this action 1s warranted. 28 In terms of discovery, Defendants anticipate that a protective order will be ee | | 23562 =a |—————sapiarmp orem EompER

Case 2|21-cv-07689-DOC-ADS Document 30 Filed 04/26/22 Page3of15 Page 1ID#:115

1 ||necessary in connection with the following items of evidence: (1) surveillance and 2 ||handheld video footage arising from Plaintiff's arrest; (2) personnel and administrative 3 records of peace officers: (3) medical records protected by HIPPA; (4) photographs and 4 || audio recordings: and (5) such other evidence for which dissemination should be limited 5 || for use in this action only. 6 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 7 ||resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 8 || information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 9 || permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct 10 || of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, 11 |/a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 12 || parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 13 |/nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 14 | confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 13 || public record of this case. 16 ||2.. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Action: Keisha Morehead v. City of Oxnard, et al. (Case No.: 2:21-cv- 18 ||07689-DOC-ADS) 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 20 ||information or items under this Order. 21 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 22 ||it 1s generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 23 ||Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 24 || Statement. 25 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 26 support staff). 27 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 28 || items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” ee | | 23562 =a |}—————saparmp Ronse

Case 2|21-cv-07689-DOC-ADS Document 30 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4of15 Page ID #:116

1 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 2 || medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 3 |/things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 4 || disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 7 || expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 9 || House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 10 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 11 || other legal entity not named as a Party to this Action. 12 2.10 Qutside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 13 || this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared 14 |! in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared 15 || on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 16 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 17 ||employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 18 || support staffs). 19 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 20 || Discovery Material in this Action. 21 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 22 |/services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 23 || demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 24 || their employees and subcontractors.

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

Related

§ 1983
28 U.S.C. § 1983

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Keisha Morehead v. City of Oxnard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keisha-morehead-v-city-of-oxnard-cacd-2022.