M.H. v. City of San Bernardino

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 29, 2020·No. 5:20-cv-00242·Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 M.H., a minor by and through his Case No.: 20-cv-00242-JCB-KK 12 guardian ad litem Nakitta Yuong, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GOVERNING MINOR PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL AND 14 v. MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS

15 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a 16 California municipal entity; COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a California 17 municipal entity; PAUL CARRANZA, an individual’ CHRIS JOHNSON, an 18 individual; JOAQUIN LARIOS, an individual; KERIE BROWN, an 19 individual, and DOES 5-50, inclusive,

20 Defendants. 21

23 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, following stipulation of counsel, that the 24 following protective order shall govern certain documents designated as confidential 25 in this case: 26 27 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 28 1 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 2 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 3 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 4 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 5 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 6 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 7 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 8 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 9 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 10 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 11 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 12 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 13 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 Plaintiff and defendant may produce certain documents in this case that 15 contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such information 16 may implicate the privacy interests of the parties and are properly protected through 17 a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 18 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the protection 19 of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden 20 or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other 21 rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad 22 purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 23 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully 24 crafted protective order.”). 25 On March 10, 2019, Sokhom Hon was shot by a San Bernardino Police 26 Department police officer. In this case Plaintiff has alleged claims of excessive force 27 and misconduct, against San Bernardino Police Department, and its agents, 28 employees, and/or contractors, including but not limited to, Officer Paul Carranza, 1 Officer Kerrie Brown, Officer Joaquin Larios, and Sergeant Johnson, for excessive 2 force, thereby resulting in the death of Decedent, Sokhom Hon. In connection with 3 these claims, Defendants have subpoenaed medical facilities and/or documents from 4 health-care providers for medical and mental health records pertaining to Plaintiff, 5 M.H., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Nakitta Yuong—the biological 6 son of Decedent, Sokhom Hon. 7 The parties stipulated to limit the scope of said records to medical and mental 8 health records, documents, and/or reports, for the following time frame: 2013 9 through the present. The parties submit that good cause exists to enter the proposed 10 protective order to balance minor Plaintiff’s right to privacy, which may be 11 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 12 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 13 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 14 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 15 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 16 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 17 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 18 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 19 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 20 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 21 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 22 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 23 1. DEFINITIONS 24 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit entitled M.H. v. City of San 25 Bernardino, et al, case number 20-cv-00242-JCB-KK. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 27 of information or items under this Order. 28 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 1 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 2 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 3 the Good Cause Statement. 4 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 5 support staff). 6 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 7 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 8 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 10 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 11 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 12 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 13 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 14 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 15 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 16 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 17 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 18 counsel. 19 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 20 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 21 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 22 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 23 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 24 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 25 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 26 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 27 support staffs). 28 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 1 Discovery Material in this Action. 2 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 3 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 4 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 5 and their employees and subcontractors. 6 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 7 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 9 from a Producing Party. 10 3.

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

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

M.H. v. City of San Bernardino (M.H. v. City of San Bernardino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States
467 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)