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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 19, 2026·No. 8:26-cv-00435·Unknown

Opinion

M ICHAEL HOOD, an individual, Case No.: 8:26-cv-00435-JVS-JDE Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 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 Tustin; ALEX COWDELL, and individual; DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; TRICIA DAMIAN, and individual; JESSE SANCHEZ, an individual; and DOES 1–20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Based on the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 25) and for good cause shown, the Court finds and orders as follows. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. and the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This Action involves claims arising from the investigation, detention, arrest, booking, juvenile proceedings, school-related events, and alleged disparate treatment of Plaintiff Michael Hood, who was a minor at relevant times, and other students at Portola High School. Discovery is likely to include confidential information concerning minors and non- party students, including identifying information, education records, school communications, juvenile arrest or diversion records, counseling or mental-health information, police reports, body-worn camera footage, photographs, audio/video recordings, school or store surveillance footage, and related school, juvenile, privacy, and law-enforcement materials. Discovery may also include confidential law-enforcement records, policies, training materials, personnel or supervisory records, internal-review or investigative materials, and confidential business or security information of Dick’s Sporting Goods, including loss- prevention procedures, security practices, and surveillance footage. Public disclosure of these materials could invade the privacy rights of minors, students, parents, witnesses, school personnel, law-enforcement personnel, and private businesses; reveal sensitive identifying or juvenile information; expose minors and students to embarrassment, harassment, stigma, retaliation, or emotional distress; and disclose confidential law-enforcement or retail-security practices. Good cause therefore exists for this Protective Order to protect such materials while permitting their reasonable use in this litigation. The parties intend that confidentiality designations will be made only in good faith and not for tactical purposes. 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 4. DEFINITIONS 4.1 Action: Michael Hood v. City of Tustin, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-00435-JVS- JDE, pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, including confidential information concerning minors or non-party students, education records, juvenile records, law-enforcement records, security materials, and personal identifying, medical, mental-health, or other private information. 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 4.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 4.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, t

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

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).

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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)