Kelly Hirt v. Riverside County

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 22, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-01472
StatusUnknown

This text of Kelly Hirt v. Riverside County (Kelly Hirt v. Riverside County) 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
Kelly Hirt v. Riverside County, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Nathan A. Oyster (SBN 225307) E-mail: noyster@bwslaw.com 2 Caylin W. Jones (SBN 327829) E-mail: cjones@bwslaw.com 3 Zareh Bursalyan (SBN 356603) E-mail: zbursalyan@bwslaw.com 4 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, 40th Floor 5 Los Angeles, California 90071-2942 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY (also sued as RIVERSIDE SHERIFF’S OFFICE) 8 and SHERIFF-CORONER CHAD BIANCO

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KELLY HIRT and MARSHALL HIRT, Case No. 5:25-cv-01472-SSS-SPx Individually and as Successors in 13 Interest for JAMES D. HIRT, DISCOVERY MATTER Deceased, 14 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiffs, ORDER 15 v. 16 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE 17 SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SHERIFF- CORONER CHAD BIANCO, and 18 DOES 1-10,

19 Defendants.

20 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 25 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 26 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 27 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 3 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 4 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 5 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action alleging a wrongful death of a mentally-ill inmate in a Riverside 9 County correctional facility is likely to involve the production of confidential 10 records, Decedent’s personal medical and mental-health records, and investigation 11 information that may implicate third party information, materials protected by the 12 Official Information Privilege, employment or financial information, and 13 confidential information relating to the County, its deputies, and other inmates, for 14 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 15 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such information may implicate the 16 privacy interests of a party or non-party and are properly protected through a Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 18 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the protection of a ‘party 19 or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ 20 Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or 21 interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and 22 language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 23 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully crafted 24 protective order.”). 25 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, facilitate the prompt 26 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect 27 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, ensure that the parties are 1 conduct of trial, address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 2 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this Action. It is the 3 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 4 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 5 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 6 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 7 2. DEFINITIONS 8 2.1 Action: Kelly Hirt and Marshall Hirt v. Riverside County, et al., USDC 9 Case No. 5:25-cv-01472-SSS-SP. 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 11 of information or items under this Order. 12 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 13 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 14 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 15 the Good Cause Statement. 16 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 17 their support staff). 18 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 19 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 20 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 22 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 23 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 24 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 26 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 27 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 2 counsel. 3 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 4 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 5 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 6 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 7 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 8 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 9 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 10 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 11 support staffs). 12 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 13 Discovery Material in this Action. 14 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 15 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 16 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 17 and their employees and subcontractors. 18 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 19 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 21 from a Producing Party. 22 3. SCOPE 23 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 24 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 25 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 26 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 27 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 1 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 2 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 3 4. DURATION 4 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as 5 confidential or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will 6 be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless 7 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are 8 made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of 9 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir.

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

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kelly Hirt v. Riverside County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-hirt-v-riverside-county-cacd-2025.