M.H. v. City of San Bernardino

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 4, 2020
Docket5:20-cv-00242
StatusUnknown

This text of M.H. v. City of San Bernardino (M.H. v. City of San Bernardino) 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
M.H. v. City of San Bernardino, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 M.H., a minor, by and through his ) Case No.: 20-cv-00242-JGB-KK guardian ad litem Nakitta Yuong, ) 12 ) [Proposed] PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, ) 13 ) vs. ) 14 ) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a ) 15 California municipal entity; COUNTY ) OF SAN BERNARDINO; a California ) 16 municipal entity; and DOES 1-50, ) inclusive, ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) ) 19 ) ) 20

21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, following stipulation of counsel, that the 22 following protective order shall govern certain documents designated as 23 confidential in this case: 24 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 26 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 27 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 28 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 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 Plaintiff and defendant may produce certain documents in this case that 12 contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such information 13 may implicate the privacy interests of the parties and are properly protected 14 through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 15 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the 16 protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or 17 undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to 18 privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are 19 implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 20 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected 21 through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). 22 On March 10, 2019, Sokhom Hon was shot by a San Bernardino Police 23 Department police officer. The San Bernardino Police Department conducted an 24 investigation into the shooting. The SBPD’s investigative report may contain 25 police reports, witness statements, reports of evidence analysis, records of 26 Decedent Hon, as well as information about individuals who are not parties to this 27 litigation, among other things. The defendant submits that good cause exists to 28 1 documents consisting of police reports and private information concerning the 2 parties to this litigation, as well as individuals who are not parties to this litigation, 3 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 4 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 5 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 6 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 7 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 8 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 9 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 10 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 11 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 12 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 13 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 14 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 15 1. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit entitled M.H. v. City of San 17 Bernardino, et al, case number 20-cv-00242-JCB-KK. 18 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 19 designation of information or items under this Order. 20 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 21 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 22 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 23 the Good Cause Statement. 24 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 25 their support staff). 26 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 27 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 28 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 2 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 3 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 4 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 7 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 9 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 10 counsel. 11 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 12 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 13 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 14 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 15 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 16 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 17 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 18 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 19 support staffs). 20 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 21 Discovery Material in this Action. 22 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 23 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 24 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 25 and their employees and subcontractors. 26 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 27 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 1 Material from a Producing Party. 2 3. SCOPE 3 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 4 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 5 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 6 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 7 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 8 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial 9 judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 10 4.

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

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M.H. v. City of San Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mh-v-city-of-san-bernardino-cacd-2020.