Mary Starks v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 20, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-05209·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-05209-ODW-GJS Document 54 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:1236

3 6 MARY STARKS, individually and as Case No. 2:21-cv-05209 ODW (GJSx) 7 successor in interest to Decedent RICKIE STARKS, 8 ORDER RE: STIPULATED Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 9 v. 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a 11 municipal entity, SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, an individual, 12 DEPUTY TAYLOR INGERSOLL, an individual, and DEPUTY EDWIN 13 BARAJAS, an individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive 14 Defendant. 15 17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 22 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 23 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 26 under the applicable legal principles. 28 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to 1 Case 2:21-cv-05209-ODW-GJS Document 54 Filed 12/20/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:1237

1 personnel records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which 2 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 3 prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to 4 the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important 5 law enforcement objections and interests, including the safety of personnel and the 6 public, as well as individual privacy rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants, 7 and third parties. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among 8 other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the 9 following: United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California 10 Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7 and 11 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et. seq; the Privacy Act of 12 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 13 (HIPPA); the right to privacy; decisional law relating to such provisions; and 14 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 15 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 16 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that such 17 confidential materials and information consist of materials entitled to the Official 18 Information Privilege. 19 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include, but is 20 not limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email 21 and written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from 22 the public in the ordinary course of business, as well as other information that is 23 not generally available to the public and is subject to the Official Information 24 Privilege and other privileges. Confidential information with financial records; 25 email and written correspondence records; video footage and/or photographs of 26 the incident; and psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, and 27 treatment plans. 28 2 Case 2:21-cv-05209-ODW-GJS Document 54 Filed 12/20/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:1238

1 Testimony taken at a deposition may be designated as Confidential by 2 making a statement to that effect on the record at the deposition. Arrangements 3 shall be made with the court reporter transcribing the deposition to separately bind 4 such portions of the transcript containing information designated as Confidential, 5 and to label such portions appropriately. 6 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 7 pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 6 of this Order. 8 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 9 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 10 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 11 parties are permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in 12 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 13 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 14 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential 15 for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief 16 that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 17 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 20 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 21 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 22 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 23 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 24 from the court to file material under seal. 25 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 26 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 27 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 28 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. 3 Case 2:21-cv-05209-ODW-GJS Document 54 Filed 12/20/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:1239

1 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 2 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 3 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 4 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 5 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 6 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 7 as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 8 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 9 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 11 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 12 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 13 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 14 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 15 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 16 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 17 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 18 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 19 declaration. 20 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 21 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 22 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 23 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 24 portions of the document, shall be filed.

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

Mary Starks v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Mary Starks v. County of Los Angeles (Mary Starks v. County of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)