Macias v. City of Delano

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 3, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-01634·Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 FRANCO MACIAS; and M.M., a minor CASE NO. 1:18-cv-01634-DAD-JLT by guardian ad litem ESMERELDA 11 VALBOVINOS as Co-successors-in- 12 interest to Decedent ERNIE MACIAS [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION AND ENTERING

13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiffs, (Doc. 34) 14 v.

15 CITY OF DELANO, a municipal corporation, PEDRO MENDOZA, 16 individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the Delano Police 17 Department, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually and in their official capacity 18 as Police Officers for the Delano Police Department 19 Defendants. 20

22 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 23

24 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25

26 Disclosure and discovery in this action are likely to involve production of 27 confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from 28 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this 1 litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 2 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 3 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 4 or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 5 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 6 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 7 acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 8 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures 9 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 10 permission from the court to file material under seal. 11 13 14 This action involves the City of Delano and members of the Delano Police 15 Department. Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant City of 16 Delano (the “City”) maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the police 17 officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, 18 audio/video recordings, and other administrative materials and information 19 currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes need special 20 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 21 prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff is also seeking official information contained 22 in the personnel files of the police officers involved in the subject incident, which 23 the City maintains as strictly confidential and which the City believes need special 24 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 25 prosecuting this litigation. 26 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information 27 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter 28 alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 1 N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City 2 has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above except 3 under protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and 4 information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against 5 Delano Police Department (“DPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in 6 disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be 7 contrary to DPD policy. 8 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the 9 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 10 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 11 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as 12 well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal 13 harm on the part of the DPD officers referenced in the materials and information. 14 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 15 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 16 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City to 17 receive a fair trial. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 19 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 20 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 21 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 22 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 23 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 24 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 25 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 26 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 27 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 28 3 The parties agree that any pleadings, motions, briefs, declarations, 4 stipulations, exhibits or other written submissions to the Court in this litigation 5 which contain or incorporate Confidential Material shall be lodged with an 6 application to file the papers or the portion thereof containing the Confidential 7 Material, under seal. 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not automatically entitle them to file confidential 10 information under seal and that Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must 11 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 12 from the Court to file material under seal. 13 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 14 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 15 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 16 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. 17 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 18 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 19 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 20 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 21 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under 22 seal. The parties’ designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 23 CONFIDENTIAL does not — without the submission of evidence by declaration, 24 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 25 privileged, or otherwise protectable — constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 27 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 28 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 1 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2 2010).

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

Macias v. City of Delano, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Macias v. City of Delano (Macias v. City of Delano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related