Nathaniel Hampton v. Chad Wolf

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 12, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-10700
StatusUnknown

This text of Nathaniel Hampton v. Chad Wolf (Nathaniel Hampton v. Chad Wolf) 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
Nathaniel Hampton v. Chad Wolf, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 TRACY L. WILKISON Acting United States Attorney 2 DAVID M. HARRIS Assistant United States Attorney 3 Chief, Civil Division JOANNE S. OSINOFF 4 Assistant United States Attorney Chief, General Civil Section, Civil Division 5 ALARICE M. MEDRANO (Cal. Bar No. 166730) Assistant United States Attorneys 6 Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street 7 Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-0460 8 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 E-mail: Alarice.Medrano@usdoj.gov 9 Attorneys for Defendant, Chad F. Wolf 10 Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 WESTERN DIVISION

15 NATHANIEL HAMPTON, No. CV 19-10700 CBM (MAAx)

16 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 v. RE: SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION (SSI) 18 CHAD F. WOLF, ACTING SECRETARY, UNITED STATES 19 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, [Discovery Document: Referred to 20 Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero] Defendant. 21

22 23 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of Sensitive Security 25 Information (“SSI”) as defined by 49 C.F.R. Part 1520, such as screening operations 26 information and screening metrics for the Transportation Security Administration 27 (“TSA”) at the Los Angeles International Airport. Accordingly, in order to permit the 1 undermining legitimate security concerns, and pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules 2 of Civil Procedure, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 3 following Stipulated Protective Order. The Stipulated Protective Order shall hereafter 4 govern the use, handling, and disposition of information, testimony or documents 5 obtained during discovery in the above captioned matter (“the Litigation”), which 6 constitutes Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”) as defined by 49 C.F.R. Part 1520. 7 The parties acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket 8 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 9 from public disclosure and use extends only to the information that is entitled to the 10 protections afforded by 49 U.S.C. § 114(r) and 49 C.F.R. Part 1520. The parties further 11 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 9.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does 12 not entitle them to file SSI under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 13 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 14 from the Court to file material under seal. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 15 production of Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”) as defined by 49 C.F.R. Part 1520, 16 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 17 than prosecuting this litigation is warranted. 18 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 19 This action is likely to involve Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”) as defined 20 by 49 C.F.R. Part 1520, such as screening operations and metrics for the Transportation 21 Security Administration (“TSA”) at the Los Angeles International Airport.. The 22 disclosure of the SSI in question by definition would be “detrimental to the security of 23 transportation,” 49 C.F.R. § 1520.5(a)(3), and therefore cause substantial harm to public 24 safety. If unauthorized individuals were able to discover information about how TSA 25 conducts its screening operations, they might be able to evade TSA’s security operations 26 and engage in acts of terrorism. Therefore, this protective order is necessary to allow the 27 parties to exchange relevant documents and information in accordance with federal law 1 measures. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 3 SSI, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 4 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 5 litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 6 justified in this matter. Information will not be designated as SSI to conceal a violation 7 of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, 8 organization, or agency; to restrain competition; or to prevent or delay the release of 9 information that does not require protection in the interest of transportation security, 10 including basic scientific research information not clearly related to transportation 11 security. TSA will only designate information as SSI consistent with 49 C.F.R. Part 12 1520. 13 3. DEFINITIONS 14 3.1. Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 15 3.2. “Covered persons”: persons who have an express duty to protect against 16 the unauthorized disclosure of SSI. 49 C.F.R. § 1520.9. 17 3.3. Discovery Material: material encompassed in this Protective Order that 18 includes, without limitation, deposition testimony, deposition exhibits, 19 interrogatory responses, admissions, affidavits, declarations, documents 20 produced pursuant to compulsory process or voluntarily in lieu of process, 21 and any other documents or information produced or given to one party by 22 another party or by a third party in connection with discovery in this matter. 23 Information taken from Discovery Material that reveals its substance shall 24 also be considered Discovery Material. 25 3.4. Party: Any party to this Action. 26 3.5. Sensitive Security Information or SSI: a specific category of information 27 that requires protection against unauthorized disclosure pursuant to 49 1 3.6. TSA: Designates information as SSI. TSA’s SSI determinations are 2 subject to exclusive review in a court of appeals pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 3 46110. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DHS, 928 F. Supp. 2d 139, 146- 4 47 (D.D.C. 2013) (“[D]istrict courts may not review TSA orders that 5 designate material as sensitive security information.”); Shqeirat v. U.S. 6 Airways Group, Inc., No. 07-1513, 2008 WL 4232018, at *2 (D. Minn. 7 Sept. 9, 2008) (“District Courts are without jurisdiction to entertain 8 challenges to the TSA’s decisions regarding disclosure of SSI.”); In re 9 September 11 Litigation, 236 F.R.D. 164, 174-75 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); 10 Chowdhury v. Northwest Airlines Corp., 226 F.R.D. 608, 614 (N.D. Cal. 11 2004). 12 4. SCOPE 13 Information taken from Discovery Material that reveals its substance shall also be 14 considered Discovery Material. 15 5. DURATION 16 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 17 imposed by this Stipulated Protective Order shall remain in effect unless TSA agrees 18 otherwise in writing.

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

Related

MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security
543 F.3d 1145 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Chowdhury v. Northwest Airlines Corp.
226 F.R.D. 608 (N.D. California, 2004)
In re September 11 Litigation
236 F.R.D. 164 (S.D. New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nathaniel Hampton v. Chad Wolf, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathaniel-hampton-v-chad-wolf-cacd-2021.