Kendrick C Azubuike v. City of Santa Monica

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 8, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-08536
StatusUnknown

This text of Kendrick C Azubuike v. City of Santa Monica (Kendrick C Azubuike v. City of Santa Monica) 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
Kendrick C Azubuike v. City of Santa Monica, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 Kendrick C. Azubuike, Case No.: 2:19-CV-08536-DMG-(JDEx)

13 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY MATTER

14 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER

15 City of Santa Monica, Officer Kevin Bacarella, Officer Timothy Fink and DOES 16 1 through 10 inclusive, (Honorable Dolly M. Gee)

17 Defendants. Filing Date: October 03, 2019 Trial Date: November 20, 2020 18

20 After full consideration of the stipulation by the parties for a Protective Order, 21 and FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows. 22 I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or private 24 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 25 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 26 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 27 Protective Order (hereafter “this Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does 28 1 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 2 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 3 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 4 principles. 5 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 This action is likely to involve confidential information derived from personnel 7 records, investigatory documents, and other materials subject to privacy protections for 8 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 9 prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to the 10 context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important law 11 enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, 12 as well as individual privacy rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants, and third 13 parties. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, 14 materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: the United States 15 Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; 16 California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 17 and 1043 et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance Portability 18 and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional law relating 19 to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 20 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 21 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that such 22 confidential materials and information consist of materials entitled to the Official 23 Information Privilege. 24 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include but is not 25 be limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email and 26 written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the 27 public in the ordinary course of business, as well as other items subject to the Official 28 Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential information with respect to 1 Plaintiff may include: employment and financial records along with psychological and 2 medical notes, evaluations, reports, and treatment plans. 3 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality pursuant 4 to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 5 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 6 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 7 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 8 permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in conduct of trial, to 9 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 10 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 11 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 12 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 13 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of 14 the public record of this case. 15 III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 16 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 17 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 18 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be 19 applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 20 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 21 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 22 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 23 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 24 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 25 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 26 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 27 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to material 28 that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of material as 1 “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 2 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 3 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a 4 party requests sealing related to dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, 5 not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 6 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific 7 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 9 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 10 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 11 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 12 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 13 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 IV. DEFINITIONS 15 4.1 Action: Kendrick C. Azuibuike v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Case No. 16 2:19-CV-08536-DMG-(JDEx). 17 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 18 information or items under this Order. 19 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of the 20 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things 21 that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified 22 above in the Good Cause Statement. 23 4.4 Counsel: General Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 24 support staff).

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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kendrick C Azubuike v. City of Santa Monica, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-c-azubuike-v-city-of-santa-monica-cacd-2020.