Noah Shumate v. City of Placentia, Officer Contreras, Officer Lemus, Sgt. Tom McKenzie, Chief Butts, Former Chief Leny

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 14, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-06532
StatusUnknown

This text of Noah Shumate v. City of Placentia, Officer Contreras, Officer Lemus, Sgt. Tom McKenzie, Chief Butts, Former Chief Leny (Noah Shumate v. City of Placentia, Officer Contreras, Officer Lemus, Sgt. Tom McKenzie, Chief Butts, Former Chief Leny) 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
Noah Shumate v. City of Placentia, Officer Contreras, Officer Lemus, Sgt. Tom McKenzie, Chief Butts, Former Chief Leny, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

Allison N. Imam-Hedrick, Esq. (State Bar No. 345539) 2 Adam A. Ainslie, Esq. (State Bar No. 311427) 3 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP 750 The City Drive, Suite 400 4 Orange, CA 92868 5 (714) 823-4100 - FAX (714) 823-4101 Email: mwroniak@ccllp.law 6 Email: aimam-hedrick@ccllp.law 7 Email: aainslie@ccllp.law

8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 CITY OF PLACENTIA, OFFICER CONTRERAS, OFFICER LEMUS, SGT. TOM MCKENZIE, CHIEF BUTTS, FORMER CHIEF LENYI 10

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION 13 NOAH SHUMATE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-6532FMO-SSC 14 Assigned to Hon. Fernando M. Olguin in 15 Plaintiff, Dept. Courtroom 6D

16 vs. DISCOVERY MATTER 17 CITY OF PLACENTIA; OFCR. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 18 CAMARGO; OFCR CONTRERAS; PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 OCFR LEMUS; SGT. MCKENZIE; CHEIF BUTTS; FORMER CHIEF Complaint Filed: 8/01/2024 20 LENYI, individually and in their Trial Date: None 21 official capacities; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 22

23 Defendants.

24 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Plaintiff Noah Shumate and 2 Defendants City of Placentia, Officer Contreras, Officer Lemus, Sergeant McKenzie, 3 Chief Butts, and Former Chief Lenyi (collectively, the Parties) hereby stipulate to, and 4 move the Court to enter, this Protective Order1, on the grounds that the discovery 5 sought is highly sensitive. 6 7 1. GENERAL 8 1.1. PURPOSES & LIMITATIONS 9 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 10 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 11 and from use for any purposes other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 12 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter this 13 Protective Order (“Order”). The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 14 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and the protection that 15 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 16 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. The 17 Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does 18 not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets 19 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 20 a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 21 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 22 This action involves the City of Placentia and peace officers employed by the 23 City of Placentia Police Department. Plaintiff will seek materials and information the 24 City of Placentia (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the 25 Officers involved in the Incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video 26 recordings, local criminal history information, video recordings, body worn camera 27 1 This stipulated protective order is substantially based on the model protective order published and 28 used throughout the Central District. footage, criminal investigative files, and other administrative materials and other 2 information that the City believes need special protection from public disclosure and 3 from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 4 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 5 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 6 information the Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 7 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 8 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 9 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be 10 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without 11 a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 12 and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 13 1.3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 14 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 15 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 16 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 17 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 18 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 19 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 20 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See, Kamakana v. 21 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 22 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 23 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 24 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 25 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 26 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The Parties’ mere 27 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 28 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 2 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 3 protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a 4 dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the 5 sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the 6 specific interest to be protected. See, Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 7 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought 8 to be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 9 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 10 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 11 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not 12 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under 13 seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a 14 redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 15 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that 16 seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 17 why redaction is not feasible. 18 19 2. DEFINITIONS 20 2.1. Action: Noah Shumate v. Thomas McKenzie, et al., case no. 2:24-cv-6532FMO- 21 SSC. 22 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 23 information or items under this Order. 24 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 25 is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 27 Statement. 28 2.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 2 support staff). 3 2.5. Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 4 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 5 2.6.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Noah Shumate v. City of Placentia, Officer Contreras, Officer Lemus, Sgt. Tom McKenzie, Chief Butts, Former Chief Leny, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noah-shumate-v-city-of-placentia-officer-contreras-officer-lemus-sgt-cacd-2025.