Mary Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach

District Court, C.D. California·Decided November 13, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-03319·Unknown

Opinion

MARY SWAN LEWIS swanlewis@aol.com 3200 Pacific Ave Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 600 - 1533

Plaintiffs in PRO SE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY SWAN LEWIS Case No. 2:2023-cv-03319-WLH-RAO DAVID EUGENE LEWIS v. ORDER

SHAWN THOMPSON, STEVE JENNIFER LEACH, DONOVAN TORRES, IAN MIKELSON, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. On October 12, 2023, Plaintiffs ’son was granted a diversion pursuant to California Penal Code § 1001.36, also known as “mental health diversion.” The benefits to such a granting are substantial to the grantee, specifically the notable guarantee that all records pertaining to the arrest and the criminal case, no matter whether they are in the custody of a private individual, private entity, court, or criminal justice agency (as defined by California Penal Code § 851.92, subdivision are sealed and not subject to disclosure to any person or entity. There are only two authorized exceptions regarding disclosure: the person to whom the diversion was granted and a criminal justice agency. A criminal justice agency may only disclose sealed records amongst themselves for the purposes of prosecution, but may not be shared to any other person or entity. The presiding Los Angeles County Superior Court judge used her inherent authority to seal the records used in the diversion hearing to prevent their disclosure. The records sealed included all police reports related to that particular case. The judge’s decision to seal is consistent with subdivision (k) of California Penal Code § 1001.36, which prevents the disclosure of any document used in the consideration of diversion. The parties acknowledge that several documents relevant to the instant case, including police reports and search warrant affidavits, fall under the protective umbrella of California Penal Code § 1001.36 and the relevant record sealing statues (i.e. California Penal Code §§ 851.87, 851.90, 851.91, 851.92, and 1001 et seq.). As Plaintiffs ’son has a statutory right to privacy, his rights should not be violated through public disclosure of information and records. This Protective Order shall apply to all of the following: DR-22-0000362) (b) Any and all reports pertaining to case DR-22-0000362 (c) Any and all documents that reveal the identity of Plaintiffs’ son This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties ’mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not — without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable — constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. (a) ACTION refers to Civil Case 2:2023-cv-03319-WLH-RAO (b) CHALLENGING PARTY refers to a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. (c) “CONFIDENTIAL” INFORMATION OR ITEMS refers to information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. (d) COUNSEL refers to outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). (e) DESIGNATING PARTY refers to a Party or Non-Party that designates

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

Mary Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Mary Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach (Mary Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach) — 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)