Molina v. County of Tulare

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedSeptember 11, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-00724
StatusUnknown

This text of Molina v. County of Tulare (Molina v. County of Tulare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDNA MOLINA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS Case No. 1:23-cv-00724-EPG 12 SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF THE ESTATE OF LORENZO MOLINA, ASHLEY MOLINA, ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, THE 13 INDIVIDUALLY, PARTIES’ STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 Plaintiffs, vs. (ECF No. 24). 15 COUNTY OF TULARE, MARTIN AGUILAR, 16 CESAR ANDRADE, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 17 15, INCLUSIVE, 18 Defendants. 19 On September 7, 2023, the parties file a stipulated protective order for the Court’s 20 approval. (ECF No. 24). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, 21 the Court notes that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” to mean 22 “information (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 23 for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the [Good 24 Cause Statement.” (Id., p. 4). The parties’ Good Cause Statement further indicates that documents 25 produced in discovery may “contain information that is unavailable to the public and/or privileged 26 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 27 or common law.” (Id., p. 2). Such a definition improperly allows the parties to deem information 28 confidential so long as they themselves believe that it qualifies for protection under various 1 authorities, including federal or state statutes, local court rules, common law, and case law, 2 without disclosing the types of information at issue as required by Local Rule 141(c)(1). 3 However, the parties elsewhere provide of description of certain “types” of confidential 4 information, which includes “medical records of the parties”, “social security numbers and similar 5 sensitive identifying information”, and “officer personnel records.” (Id., p. 4). This definition also 6 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 7 to the death of Juan Molina on May 1, 2022.” (Id.) Accordingly, the Court will limit the parties’ 8 definition of confidential information to that information contained in the section of the protective 9 order titled, “‘CONFIDENTIAL’ Information or Items.” (Id.) 10 Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 11 personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 12 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s 13 established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 14 discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See 15 ECF No. 23, p. 7; ECF No. 11, pp. 4-5 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery 16 conferences and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the 17 Court’s website). 18 Accordingly, the Court will approve the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 24), 19 in part, as revised above. 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 22 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 23 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 24 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 25 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 26 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 27 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 28 principles. 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 Defendant County of Tulare, acting by and through the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office 3 (TCSO), may be producing documents that contain information that is unavailable to the public 4 and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statues, court rules, 5 case decisions, or common law. Defendants may also be producing documents that contain 6 personal and confidential information regarding individuals which information is unavailable to 7 the public, including peace officer personnel records and records related to third parties. 8 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 9 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 10 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 11 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 12 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified 13 in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential 14 for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 15 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 16 part of the public record of this case. The Stipulated Order is made without prejudice to future 17 determinations by the Court as to the confidentiality of particular documents. 18 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 19 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 20 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 21 Rules 141, 141.1(e) set forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be 22 applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 23 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 24 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be 25 shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 26 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 27 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 28 1 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 2 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must 3 be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ 4 mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without 5 the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be 6 filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 7 cause. 8 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 9 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought 10 shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. 11 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010).

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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Molina v. County of Tulare, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molina-v-county-of-tulare-caed-2023.