Marco Antonio Pescina v. City of Santa Ana

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 27, 2023
Docket8:20-cv-01781
StatusUnknown

This text of Marco Antonio Pescina v. City of Santa Ana (Marco Antonio Pescina v. City of Santa Ana) 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
Marco Antonio Pescina v. City of Santa Ana, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 8:20-cv-01781-CJC-DFM Document 29 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:137

1 JILL WILLIAMS – State Bar No. 221793 KIMBERLY MOROSI – State Bar No. 345641 2 CARPENTER, ROTHANS & DUMONT 500 S. Grand Avenue, 19th Floor 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 228-0400 / (213) 228-0401 [Fax] 4 jwilliams@crdlaw.com / kmorosi@crdlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO ANTONIO PESCINA, ) Case No.: 8:20-cv-01781-CJC-DFM 12 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ON 13 ) v. ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 ) ORDER CITY OF SANTA ANA; GERARADO ) 15 RAYA; RONALD SANDOVAL; and ) DOES 1-50, et al. ) 16 ) [DISCOVERY DOCUMENT: Defendants. ) REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE 17 ) JUDGE] ) 18 ) ) 19 IT IS SO STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN Plaintiff MARCO 20 ANTONIO PESCINA, and Defendants CITY OF SANTA ANA, DETECTIVE 21 GERARDO RAYA, and DETECTIVE RONALD SANDOVAL, by and through 22 their respective counsel, as follows: 23 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 26 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 27 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 28 - 1 - STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 8:20-cv-01781-CJC-DFM Document 29 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:138

1 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 2 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 3 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 4 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 5 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 6 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 7 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 8 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 9 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve proprietary and confidential information for 12 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 13 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 14 materials and information include those not otherwise generally unavailable to the 15 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 16 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, 17 to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 18 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 19 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 20 reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 21 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 22 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 23 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 24 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 25 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 26 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 27 /// 28 /// - 2 - STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 8:20-cv-01781-CJC-DFM Document 29 Filed 02/27/23 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:139

1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: Marco Antonio Pescina v. City of Santa Ana, et al., 8:20-cv- 3 01781-CJC-DFM. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 5 designation of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless 7 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that a Designating 8 Party believes is entitled to confidential treatment under Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 10 This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential 11 information; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, abstracts or compilations of 12 Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations 13 that might reveal Confidential information. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 15 support staff). 16 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 17 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 18 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 20 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 21 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 22 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 23 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 25 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 26 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 27 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 28 counsel. - 3 - STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 8:20-cv-01781-CJC-DFM Document 29 Filed 02/27/23 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:140

1 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation association, or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 4 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 5 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 6 which has appeared on behalf of that party and includes support staff. 7 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 8 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 9 support staffs). 10 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 11 Discovery Material in this Action. 12 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 13 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 14 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 15 and their employees and subcontractors. 16 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 17 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 19 from a Producing Party. 20 3. SCOPE 21 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 22 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 23 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, abstracts, summaries, or 24 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any deposition testimony, 25 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal 26 Protected Material. 27 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 28 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. - 4 - STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 8:20-cv-01781-CJC-DFM Document 29 Filed 02/27/23 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:141

1 4.

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)
Patterson v. Caldwell
17 A. 18 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Marco Antonio Pescina v. City of Santa Ana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marco-antonio-pescina-v-city-of-santa-ana-cacd-2023.