Phoebe Powell v. Alejandro Mayorkas

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 26, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-02444
StatusUnknown

This text of Phoebe Powell v. Alejandro Mayorkas (Phoebe Powell v. Alejandro Mayorkas) 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
Phoebe Powell v. Alejandro Mayorkas, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 E. MARTIN ESTRADA United States Attorney 2 DAVID M. HARRIS Assistant United States Attorney 3 Chief, Civil Division JOANNE OSINOFF 4 Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Complex and Defensive Litigation Section 5 ERIN CHOI (Cal. Bar No. 342323) Assistant United States Attorney 6 Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street 7 Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-7354 8 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 E-mail: erin.choi@usdoj.gov 9 Attorneys for Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas 10 Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13

14 PHOEBE POWELL, Case No. 2:22-cv-02444-MWF-RAO 15 Plaintiff,

16 v. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 17 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland 18 Security, Honorable Rozella A. Oliver United States Magistrate Judge 19 Defendant.

21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 23 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 24 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 25 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 26 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 27 1 1 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 2 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 3 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 4 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does 5 not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth 6 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 7 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 8 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 Good cause exists for the entry of this protective order, because discovery in this 10 action is likely to involve production of employee disciplinary histories, personnel actions, 11 and other personal information that is subject to the provision of the Privacy Act of 1974, 12 5 U.S.C. § 552a and could result in unnecessary harm to these employees, including 13 embarrassment and invasion of their privacy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Accordingly, 14 to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 15 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 16 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary 17 uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 18 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 19 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not 20 be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without 21 a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 22 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 23 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 24 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 25 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 26 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 27 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 1 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 2 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 3 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 4 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 5 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 6 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a 7 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 8 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 9 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 10 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 11 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 12 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 13 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 14 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 15 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 16 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 17 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection 18 with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 19 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 20 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must 21 be provided by declaration. 22 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 23 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 24 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 25 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. 26 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 27 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: Phoebe Powell v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, United States 3 Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 2:22-cv-02444-MWF-RAO 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 5 information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 7 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 9 Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 11 support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 13 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 15 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 16 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 17 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 18 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 19 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 20 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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)
Burrell v. Hampshire County
307 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Phoebe Powell v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoebe-powell-v-alejandro-mayorkas-cacd-2023.