M.W. v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 18, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-03507
StatusUnknown

This text of M.W. v. County of Los Angeles (M.W. v. County of Los Angeles) 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
M.W. v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 Denisse O. Gastélum, Esq. (SBN Christian Contreras, Esq. (SBN 330269) 282771) CC@Contreras-Law.com 2 dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS GASTÉLUM LAW PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 3 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 360 E. 2nd St., 8th Floor 3767 Worsham Ave. Los Angeles, California 90012 4 Long Beach, California 90808 Tel: (323) 435-8000; Fax: (323) 597-0101 Tel: (213) 340-6112 5 Attorney for Plaintiff, Attorney for Plaintiff, ALYSSA DELEON 6 M.W., by and through her Guardian Ad 7 Litem, RACHEL DELEON

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 M.W., by and through her Guardian Ad ) CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-03507-FLA-MAA 12 Litem, RACHEL DELEON; and ) [Assigned to Judge Fernando L. Aenlle- ALYSSA DELEON, individually, ) Rocha; Referred to Magistrate Judge 13 ) Maria A. Audero] Plaintiff, ) 14 ) DISCOVERY MATTER v. ) 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a ) ) [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 16 municipality; LOS ANGELES ) PROTECTIVE ORDER COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) 17 DEPARTMENT, a public entity; ) Action Filed: May 8, 2023 ALEJANDRO VILLANEUVA, an ) 18 individual; DOE DEPUTY 1, an ) individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 ) ) 21 22 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 25 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 26 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 27 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 28 Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 1 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 2 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 3 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 4 set forth in Section 13.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 5 them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 6 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 7 seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 8 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this 10 case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such 11 information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly 12 protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. 13 Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express 14 purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 15 oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific 16 reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such 17 matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of 18 Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be 19 protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). 20 As Plaintiffs are seeking and Defendants may produce, among other things, 21 internal, security sensitive, third party and law enforcement private and confidential 22 information, administrative, personnel and institutional documents, which contain 23 sensitive information that the County of Los Angeles believes need special protection 24 from public disclosure. The documents identified in this Protective Order, which 25 Defendants believe in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which 26 the County of Los Angeles maintains as strictly confidential and are otherwise 27 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 28 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 1 law, are therefore entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. 2 3. DEFINITIONS 3 3.1. Action: [This pending federal lawsuit.] [Alternatively, this definition may 4 include consolidated or related actions.] 5 3.2. Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation of 6 information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 7 3.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is 8 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 9 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 10 Good Cause Statement. 11 3.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as their 12 support staff). 13 3.5. Designating Party: A Party or Nonparty that designates information or items 14 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 3.6. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the 17 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that is 19 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 3.7. 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 22 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 3.8. In-House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. In- 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 25 outside counsel. 26 3.9. Nonparty: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other 27 legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 28 1 3.10. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party 2 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 3 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 4 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 5 3.11. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, In-House Counsel, and Outside 7 Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 8 3.12. Producing Party: A Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or 9 Discovery Material in this Action. 10 3.13. Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support 11 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 12 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 13 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 14 3.14. Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 15 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 3.15. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 17 from a Producing Party. 18 4. SCOPE 19 The protections conferred by this Stipulated Protective Order cover not only 20 Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected 21 Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; 22 and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that 23 might reveal Protected Material. 24 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 25 trial judge. This Stipulated Protective Order does not govern the use of Protected 26 Material at trial. 27 /// 28 /// 1 5.

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

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M.W. v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mw-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.