Molina v. County of Tulare

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 11, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00724·Unknown

Opinion

EDNA MOLINA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS Case No. 1:23-cv-00724-EPG OF LORENZO MOLINA, ASHLEY MOLINA, ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, THE INDIVIDUALLY, PARTIES’ STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiffs, vs. (ECF No. 24). COUNTY OF TULARE, MARTIN AGUILAR, CESAR ANDRADE, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. On September 7, 2023, the parties file a stipulated protective order for the Court’s approval. (ECF No. 24). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court notes that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” to mean “information (regardless of how 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.” (Id., p. 4). The parties’ Good Cause Statement further indicates that documents produced in discovery may “contain information that is unavailable to the public and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law.” (Id., p. 2). Such a definition improperly allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection under various authorities, including federal or state statutes, local court rules, common law, and case law, without disclosing the types of information at issue as required by Local Rule 141(c)(1). However, the parties elsewhere provide of description of certain “types” of confidential information, which includes “medical records of the parties”, “social security numbers and similar sensitive identifying information”, and “officer personnel records.” (Id., p. 4). This definition also provides that “[e]xcept by stipulation or order based on good case, this information may not include records, information, and investigation of the subject incident(s), specifically those related to the death of Juan Molina on May 1, 2022.” (Id.) Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ definition of confidential information to that information contained in the section of the protective order titled, “‘CONFIDENTIAL’ Information or Items.” (Id.) Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See ECF No. 23, p. 7; ECF No. 11, pp. 4-5 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conferences and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s website). Accordingly, the Court will approve the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 24), in part, as revised above. 1. A. 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 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 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. Defendant County of Tulare, acting by and through the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office (TCSO), may be producing documents that contain information that is unavailable to the public and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statues, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants may also be producing documents that contain personal and confidential information regarding individuals which information is unavailable to the public, including peace officer personnel records and records related to third parties. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The Stipulated Order is made without prejudice to future determinations by the Court as to the confidentiality of particular documents. C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rules 141, 141.1(e) set 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 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., 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. Pac. 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 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, 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 prot

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

Molina v. County of Tulare, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Molina v. County of Tulare (Molina v. County of Tulare) — 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)
United States v. Caraballo
447 F.3d 26 (First Circuit, 2006)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)