Mary Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 13, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-03319
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

MARY SWAN LEWIS 1 DAVID EUGENE LEWIS swanlewis@aol.com 2 3200 Pacific Ave 3 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 600 - 1533 4

5 Plaintiffs in PRO SE 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 12 MARY SWAN LEWIS Case No. 2:2023-cv-03319-WLH-RAO DAVID EUGENE LEWIS 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 v. ORDER

15 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, SHAWN THOMPSON, STEVE 16 KITSIOS, DANIEL BRANDT, JENNIFER LEACH, DONOVAN 17 TORRES, IAN MIKELSON, and DOES 18 1 through 20, inclusive,

19 Defendants. 20 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 On October 12, 2023, Plaintiffs ’son was granted a diversion pursuant to 5 California Penal Code § 1001.36, also known as “mental health diversion.” The 6 benefits to such a granting are substantial to the grantee, specifically the notable 7 guarantee that all records pertaining to the arrest and the criminal case, no matter 8 whether they are in the custody of a private individual, private entity, court, or 9 criminal justice agency (as defined by California Penal Code § 851.92, subdivision 10 are sealed and not subject to disclosure to any person or entity. There are only two 11 authorized exceptions regarding disclosure: the person to whom the diversion was 12 granted and a criminal justice agency. A criminal justice agency may only disclose 13 sealed records amongst themselves for the purposes of prosecution, but may not be 14 shared to any other person or entity. 15 The presiding Los Angeles County Superior Court judge used her inherent 16 authority to seal the records used in the diversion hearing to prevent their 17 disclosure. The records sealed included all police reports related to that particular 18 case. The judge’s decision to seal is consistent with subdivision (k) of California 19 Penal Code § 1001.36, which prevents the disclosure of any document used in the 20 consideration of diversion. 21 The parties acknowledge that several documents relevant to the instant case, 22 including police reports and search warrant affidavits, fall under the protective 23 umbrella of California Penal Code § 1001.36 and the relevant record sealing statues 24 (i.e. California Penal Code §§ 851.87, 851.90, 851.91, 851.92, and 1001 et seq.). As 25 Plaintiffs ’son has a statutory right to privacy, his rights should not be violated 26 through public disclosure of information and records. This Protective Order shall 27 apply to all of the following: 1 DR-22-0000362) 2 (b) Any and all reports pertaining to case DR-22-0000362 3 (c) Any and all documents that reveal the identity of Plaintiffs’ son 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 5 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 6 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 7 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 8 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 9 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 10 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 11 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 12 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 13 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 14 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 15 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 16 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 17 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 18 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 19 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 20 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 21 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 22 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 23 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 24 of the public record of this case. 25 III. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 26 SEAL 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 1 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 2 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 3 to file material under seal. 4 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 5 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 6 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 7 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 8 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 9 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 10 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 11 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 12 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties ’mere 13 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not — 14 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 15 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 16 otherwise protectable — constitute good cause. 17 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 18 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 19 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 20 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 21 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or 22 introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 23 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 24 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 25 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 26 declaration. 27 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 1 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 2 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 3 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 4 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 5 IV. DEFINITIONS 6 (a) ACTION refers to Civil Case 2:2023-cv-03319-WLH-RAO 7 (b) CHALLENGING PARTY refers to a Party or Non-Party that challenges 8 the designation of information or items under this Order.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mary Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-swan-lewis-v-city-of-manhattan-beach-cacd-2023.