Nabil Shukair v. City of Simi Valley, and John Doe Simi Valley Police Officers A-H, inclusive, all sued in their individual capacities

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 14, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-03573·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NABIL SHUKAIR, an individual, Case No. 2:25-CV-03573-HDV-RAO Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER1 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, and JOHN DOE SIMI VALLEY POLICE OFFICERS A-H, inclusive, all sued in their individual capacities, Defendants. 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. This action involves Plaintiff NABIL SHUKAIR (“Plaintiff”) and CITY OF SIMI VALLEY (“City” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff is seeking materials and information the City maintains as confidential, such as officer body worn video recordings, audio recordings and materials, and other administrative and personnel records which, if they exist, are in the possession of the City which Defendant believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Defendant asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above. These materials and information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary action against Simi Valley Police Department (“SVPD”) officers and have been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to SVPD policy. Defendant contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical and legal harm on the part of the SVPD officers referenced in the materials and information. information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendant herein to receive a fair trial. 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. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal Confidential information. 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; 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, 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 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 protectable portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 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. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal Confidential information. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 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 tangibl

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

Nabil Shukair v. City of Simi Valley, and John Doe Simi Valley Police Officers A-H, inclusive, all sued in their individual capacities, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Nabil Shukair v. City of Simi Valley, and John Doe Simi Valley Police Officers A-H, inclusive, all sued in their individual capacities (Nabil Shukair v. City of Simi Valley, and John Doe Simi Valley Police Officers A-H, inclusive, all sued in their individual capacities) — 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)
Peralta v. Castro
15 Cal. 511 (California Supreme Court, 1860)