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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 14, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-06532·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

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

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

Defendants.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Plaintiff Noah Shumate and Defendants City of Placentia, Officer Contreras, Officer Lemus, Sergeant McKenzie, Chief Butts, and Former Chief Lenyi (collectively, the Parties) hereby stipulate to, and move the Court to enter, this Protective Order1, on the grounds that the discovery sought is highly sensitive. 1. GENERAL 1.1. PURPOSES & 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 purposes other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter this Protective Order (“Order”). The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and the protection that it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 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. 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action involves the City of Placentia and peace officers employed by the City of Placentia Police Department. Plaintiff will seek materials and information the City of Placentia (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the Officers involved in the Incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, local criminal history information, video recordings, body worn camera 1 This stipulated protective order is substantially based on the model protective order published and used throughout the Central District. footage, criminal investigative files, and other administrative materials and other information that the City believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 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 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. 1.3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 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, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 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, 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: Noah Shumate v. Thomas McKenzie, et al., case no. 2:24-cv-6532FMO- 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 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. 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 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigati

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

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

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