Michael Hood v. City of Tustin; Alex Cowdell; Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.; Tricia Damian; Jesse Sanchez; and Does 1–20, inclusive

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 19, 2026
Docket8:26-cv-00435
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Hood v. City of Tustin; Alex Cowdell; Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.; Tricia Damian; Jesse Sanchez; and Does 1–20, inclusive (Michael Hood v. City of Tustin; Alex Cowdell; Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.; Tricia Damian; Jesse Sanchez; and Does 1–20, inclusive) 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 Hood v. City of Tustin; Alex Cowdell; Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.; Tricia Damian; Jesse Sanchez; and Does 1–20, inclusive, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 M ICHAEL HOOD, an individual, Case No.: 8:26-cv-00435-JVS-JDE Plaintiff, 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 v. 15 C co I r T p Y or O at F io T n; U T S U T S IN TI , N a C PO al L if I o C rn E i a municipal DEPARTMENT, a department of the City of 16 Tustin; ALEX COWDELL, and individual; DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a 17 Delaware corporation; TRICIA DAMIAN, and individual; JESSE SANCHEZ, an 18 individual; and DOES 1–20, inclusive,

19 Defendants. 20

21 Based on the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 25) and for good cause shown, the Court 22 finds and orders as follows. 23 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or 25 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 26 any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties 27 hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 1 and the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 2 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 3 principles. 4 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This Action involves claims arising from the investigation, detention, arrest, booking, 6 juvenile proceedings, school-related events, and alleged disparate treatment of Plaintiff 7 Michael Hood, who was a minor at relevant times, and other students at Portola High 8 School. Discovery is likely to include confidential information concerning minors and non- 9 party students, including identifying information, education records, school 10 communications, juvenile arrest or diversion records, counseling or mental-health 11 information, police reports, body-worn camera footage, photographs, audio/video 12 recordings, school or store surveillance footage, and related school, juvenile, privacy, and 13 law-enforcement materials. 14 Discovery may also include confidential law-enforcement records, policies, training 15 materials, personnel or supervisory records, internal-review or investigative materials, and 16 confidential business or security information of Dick’s Sporting Goods, including loss- 17 prevention procedures, security practices, and surveillance footage. 18 Public disclosure of these materials could invade the privacy rights of minors, 19 students, parents, witnesses, school personnel, law-enforcement personnel, and private 20 businesses; reveal sensitive identifying or juvenile information; expose minors and students 21 to embarrassment, harassment, stigma, retaliation, or emotional distress; and disclose 22 confidential law-enforcement or retail-security practices. Good cause therefore exists for 23 this Protective Order to protect such materials while permitting their reasonable use in this 24 litigation. The parties intend that confidentiality designations will be made only in good 25 faith and not for tactical purposes. 26 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 1 Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 2 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 4 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be 5 shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 6 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 7 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 8 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific 9 showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 10 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under 11 seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 12 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 13 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 14 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 15 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 16 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 17 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. 18 Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 19 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 20 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 21 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 22 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 23 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 24 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 25 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, 26 privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 27 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 1 4. DEFINITIONS 2 4.1 Action: Michael Hood v. City of Tustin, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-00435-JVS- 3 JDE, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 4 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 5 designation of information or items under this Order. 6 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 7 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 9 Statement, including confidential information concerning minors or non-party students, 10 education records, juvenile records, law-enforcement records, security materials, and 11 personal identifying, medical, mental-health, or other private information. 12 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 13 support staff). 14 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 15 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 17 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 18 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 19 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 an 22 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 counsel. 25 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other 26 legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 27 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 1 Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf 2 of that party, and includes support staff.

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)
Harmon Anderson v. City of Bristol, Tennessee
6 F.3d 1168 (Sixth Circuit, 1993)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)
State of Maine v. Sean Eori
2026 ME 25 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2026)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Hood v. City of Tustin; Alex Cowdell; Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.; Tricia Damian; Jesse Sanchez; and Does 1–20, inclusive, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-hood-v-city-of-tustin-alex-cowdell-dicks-sporting-goods-inc-cacd-2026.