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

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 14, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-03573
StatusUnknown

This text of 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) 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
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).

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 NABIL SHUKAIR, an individual, Case No. 2:25-CV-03573-HDV-RAO 11 Plaintiff, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER1 13 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, and JOHN DOE SIMI VALLEY POLICE 14 OFFICERS A-H, inclusive, all sued in their individual capacities, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 23 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 24 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 25 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 27 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action involves Plaintiff NABIL SHUKAIR (“Plaintiff”) and CITY OF 6 SIMI VALLEY (“City” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff is seeking materials and 7 information the City maintains as confidential, such as officer body worn video 8 recordings, audio recordings and materials, and other administrative and personnel 9 records which, if they exist, are in the possession of the City which Defendant 10 believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 11 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 12 Defendant asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information 13 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 14 by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 15 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 16 publicly released the materials and information referenced above. These materials 17 and information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary action 18 against Simi Valley Police Department (“SVPD”) officers and have been used as 19 evidence in disciplinary proceedings where the officers’ conduct was considered to 20 be contrary to SVPD policy. 21 Defendant contends that absent a protective order delineating the 22 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 23 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 24 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well 25 as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical 26 and legal harm on the part of the SVPD officers referenced in the materials and 27 information. 1 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 2 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendant 3 herein to receive a fair trial. 4 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 5 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 6 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 7 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 8 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 9 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 10 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 11 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 12 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 13 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. This also includes (1) any 14 information copied or extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, 15 excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any 16 testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal Confidential information. 17 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 18 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 19 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 20 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 21 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 22 to file material under seal. 23 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 24 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 25 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 26 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 27 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 1 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 2 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 3 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 4 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 5 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 6 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 7 otherwise protectable—constitute good 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 10 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 11 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 12 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 13 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 14 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 15 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 16 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 17 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 18 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 19 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 20 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 21 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 22 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 23 24 2. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 27 designation of information or items under this Order. 1 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 2 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 3 the Good Cause Statement. This also includes (1) any information copied or 4 extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or 5 compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 6 presentations that might reveal Confidential information. 7 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 8 their support staff).

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)
Peralta v. Castro
15 Cal. 511 (California Supreme Court, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nabil Shukair v. City of Simi Valley, and John Doe Simi Valley Police Officers A-H, inclusive, all sued in their individual capacities, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nabil-shukair-v-city-of-simi-valley-and-john-doe-simi-valley-police-cacd-2026.