Kristal Reyes v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 22, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05209
StatusUnknown

This text of Kristal Reyes v. County of Los Angeles (Kristal Reyes v. County of Los Angeles) 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
Kristal Reyes v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRYSTAL REYES, as Guardian ad 2:19-cv-05209-GW-KSx 12 Litem for I.R., a minor, Consolidated with 2:20-v-471-GW-KSx 13 Plaintiff, [Hon. George Wu; Hon. Karen L. 14 vs. Stevenson, Magistrate] 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE 16 ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION ORDER REGARDING 17 DEPARTMENT, LOS ANGELES PRODUCTION OF COUNTY CHIEF PROBATION CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 18 OFFICER TERI L. McDONALD, AND INFORMATION 19 DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICER PUENTE, DEPUTY PROBATION 20 OFFICER STANCE, and DOES 1 TO 21 10, Defendants. 22 23 24 The following protective order applies to the two cases, Krystal Reyes v. 25 County of Los Angeles, et al (2:19-cv-05209-GW-KSx) and Irie Reyes v. County of 26 Los Angeles (2:20-v-471-GW-KSx), which were consolidated on April 14, 2020 27 (see Dkt. No. 20 in 2:20-v-471-GW-KSx): 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 11 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 12 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 13 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 14 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 16 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 This action is likely to involve confidential information for which special 18 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 19 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 20 and information consist of, among other things, personnel records and personal 21 information (such as birthdates and social security numbers) of both parties and 22 non-parties (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), as 23 well as information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 24 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 25 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 26 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 27 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 1 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 2 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 3 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 4 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 5 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 6 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 7 part of the public record of this case. 8 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: Reyes v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (2:19-cv-05209-GW- 11 KS) 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 13 designation of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 16 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 17 the Good Cause Statement. 18 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 19 their support staff). 20 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 21 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 22 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 23 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 24 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 25 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 26 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 27 1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 2 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 3 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 5 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 6 outside counsel. 7 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 8 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 10 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 11 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 12 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 13 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 14 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 15 support staffs). 16 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 17 Discovery Material in this Action. 18 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 19 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 20 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 21 and their employees and subcontractors. 22 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 23 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 25 Material from a Producing Party. 26 27 3. SCOPE 1 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 2 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 3 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 4 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 5 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 6 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 7 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 8 9 4. DURATION 10 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as 11 confidential or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and 12 will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, 13 unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed 14 otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City 15 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing 16 “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from 17 “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents are part of court 18 record). Accordingly, the terms of this protective order do not extend beyond the 19 commencement of the trial. 20 21 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 22 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Warren v. Steer
5 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kristal Reyes v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristal-reyes-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2020.