Michael George Tater v. City of Huntington Beach

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 11, 2022
Docket8:20-cv-01772
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael George Tater v. City of Huntington Beach (Michael George Tater v. City of Huntington 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
Michael George Tater v. City of Huntington Beach, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 8:20-cv-01772-MEMF-JDE Document 68 Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:871

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL GEORGE TATER, ) Case No. 8:20-cv-01772-MEMF ) individually; KYLA SKYE STANISKIS, ) (JDEx) 11 individually and as Personal ) ) 12 Representative of the Estate of ) PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 SHANNON MICHELLE TATER, ) )

) 14 Plaintiffs, ) 15 vs. ) ) 16 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a ) ) Governmental Entity; STEPHANI ) 17 WILLIAMS, individually; MICHAEL ) ) 18 WAGNER, individually; NICOLE ) SHOGREN, individually; KELLI ) 19 HERRERA, individually; and DOES 1 ) ) 20 through 10, inclusive, ) 21 ) ) 22 Defendants. ) 23 Based on the Stipulation between Plaintiff Kyla Skye Staniskis (“Plaintiff”) 24 and Defendants City Of Huntington Beach ("City"), Stephani Williams, Michael 25 Wagner, Nicole Shogren and Kelli Herrera (collectively “Defendants”) and for good 26 cause shown therein, the Court finds and order as follows, as to Plaintiff and 27 Defendant. 28

1 Case 8:20-cv-01772-MEMF-JDE Document 68 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:872

1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 5 warranted. Plaintiff and Defendants acknowledge that this Order does not confer 6 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 7 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 8 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 9 legal principles. 10 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve sensitive private information (including 12 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 13 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 14 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 15 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 16 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 17 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 18 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 19 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 20 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 21 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 22 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 23 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 24 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 25 case. 26 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILINGPROCEDURE 27 Plaintiff and Defendants acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, 28 that this Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under

2 Case 8:20-cv-01772-MEMF-JDE Document 68 Filed 05/11/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:873

1 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 2 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 3 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of 4 access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 5 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 6 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 7 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 8 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 9 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 10 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 11 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 12 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 13 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 14 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 15 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 18 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 19 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 20 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 21 under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 22 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 23 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 24 must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 26 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 27 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 28 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document,

3 Case 8:20-cv-01772-MEMF-JDE Document 68 Filed 05/11/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:874

1 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 2 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 4. DEFINITIONS 4 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 5 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 8 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 9 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 10 the Good Cause Statement. 11 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 their support staff). 13 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 17 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 19 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 20 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 22 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 25 counsel. 26 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 27 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 28

4 Case 8:20-cv-01772-MEMF-JDE Document 68 Filed 05/11/22 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:875

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)
Michael George Tater v. City of Huntington Beach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-george-tater-v-city-of-huntington-beach-cacd-2022.