L.L. v. Diego Sanchez

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 14, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00546
StatusUnknown

This text of L.L. v. Diego Sanchez (L.L. v. Diego Sanchez) 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
L.L. v. Diego Sanchez, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 LMuiicsh Aae.l C Sa. rCriallrori, lElos,q E.,s SqB., NSB 7N03 29588 878 DSeelneinses eE Ost.r aGdaas-tVéliullmel,a S, SBBNN 2 8325747919 4 2 CARRILLO LAW FIRM, LLP GASTÉLUM LAW, APC 1499 Huntington Drive, Suite 402 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3 South Pasadena, CA 91030 3767 Worsham Ave. Long Beach, California 90808 4 Tel: (626) 799-9375 Tel: (213) 340-6112 Fax: (626) 799-9380 Fax: (213) 402-8622 5 Email: lac4justice@gmail.com Email: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com mc@carrillofirm.com sestradavillela@gastelumfirm.com 6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, L.L.

8 Richard A. Jorgensen, SBN 200618 9 JORGENSEN & SALBERG, LLP 15137 Woodlawn Avenue 10 Tustin, CA 92780 11 Tel: (949) 851-9900

12 Attorneys for Defendant, DIEGO SANCHEZ 13 [Additional counsel on following page] 14

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 L.L., an individual, ) CASE NO.: 5:25−cv−00546 SSS (DTBx) 18 ) (Case Assigned to Honorable Sunshine ) Suzanne Sykes, District Judge; Honorable 19 Plaintiff, ) David T. Bristow, Magistrate Judge) ) 20 v. ) DISCOVERY MATTER )

21 BEAUMONT POLICE ) ) [ P P R R O O T P E O C S T E I D V ] E S O TI R P D U E L R A T ED 22 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; ) CITY OF BEAUMONT, a public ) 23 entity; CHIEF SEAN THUILLIEZ, ) Action Filed: February 28, 2025 individually; DIEGO SANCHEZ, ) 24 individually, and DOES 1 through 10, ) individually, jointly and severally, ) 25 ) Defendants ) 26 ) ) 27 ) ) 28 ) 1 Eugene P. Ramirez, Esq., SBN 134865 MANNING & KASS ELLROL, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 2 225 Broadway, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 3 Phone: (619) 515-0269 4 Fax: (619) 515-0268 Email: eugene.ramirez@manningkass.com 5 Email: Kayleigh.anderson@manningkass.com 6 Email: eugene.hanrahan@manningkass.com Attorneys for Defendants, City of Beaumont, 7 Beaumont Police Department, and Chief Sean Thuilliez 8

28 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 5 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. 6 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 7 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 8 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 9 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 10 items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 12 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 13 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 14 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this 17 case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such 18 information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected 19 through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 20 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the 21 protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue 22 burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to 23 other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad 24 purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 25 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully 26 crafted protective order.”). 27 As Plaintiffs are seeking and Defendants may produce, among other things, 28 internal, security sensitive, third party and law enforcement private and confidential 1 information, administrative, personnel and institutional documents, which contain 2 sensitive information that the City of Beaumont believes need special protection from 3 public disclosure. The documents identified in this Protective Order, which Defendants 4 believe in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which the City of 5 Beaumont maintains as strictly confidential and are otherwise generally unavailable to 6 the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 7 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law, are therefore 8 entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 12 of information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of the 14 medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 15 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good 16 Cause Statement, and other applicable federal privileges. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 23 the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 24 testimony, transcripts, or tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures 25 or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 27 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 28 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. 2 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 3 counsel. 4 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 5 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 6 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 7 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 8 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 9 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 10 2.11 Party: any part to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 11 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 12 support staffs). 13 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 14 Discovery Material in this Action. 15 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 16 services (e.g., photocopying; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or 17 demonstrations; and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 18 their employees and subcontractors. 19 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 20 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 22 from a Producing Party. 23 3.

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

Related

Tayloe v. T. & S. Sandiford
20 U.S. 13 (Supreme Court, 1822)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
L.L. v. Diego Sanchez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ll-v-diego-sanchez-cacd-2025.