Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 15, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00888
StatusUnknown

This text of Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside (Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside) 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
Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

GRECH, PACKER, & HANKS 1 Trenton C. Packer (SBN 241057) tpacker@grechpackerlaw.com 2 7095 Indiana Ave Ste 200 Riverside, CA 92506 3 Phone: (951) 682-9311

Attorneys for Plaintiff RANDALL ROSKELLY 4 Christopher P. Wesierski [Bar No. 086736] 5 cwesierski@wzllp.com Michelle R. Prescott [Bar No. 262638] 6 mprescott@wzllp.com WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP 7 29 Orchard Road Lake Forest, California 92630 8 Telephone: (949) 975-1000 Facsimile: (949) 756-0517 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE and MICHAEL HEUER 11

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 RANDALL ROSKELLY, 17 Case No.: 5:25-cv-00888-JGB-DTB Plaintiff, 18 v. [Honorable District Judge, Jesus G. 19 Bernal, Magistrate Judge, David T. Bristow] 20 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; MICHAEL HEUER; and DOES 1-10, 21 inclusive, JOINT STIPULATION FOR A 22 Defendants. PROTECTIVE ORDER

23 DISCOVERY MATTER

26 27 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 2 Plaintiff RANDALL ROSKELLY, along with Defendants COUNTY OF 3 RIVERSIDE and MICHAEL HEUER, hereby submit the following stipulation for a 4 protective order. 5 Plaintiff and Defendants submit this stipulation and proposed stipulated 6 protective order so that the parties may carry out their obligations pursuant to Rule 7 26. 8 9 Respectfully Submitted, 10 DATED: July 15, 2025 GRECH, PACKER, & HANKS

11 By: /s/ Trenton C. Packer 12 Trenton C. Packer, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff RANDALL 13 ROSKELLY 14 DATED: July 14, 2025 WESIERSKI & ZUREK LLP 15

16 17 By: /s/ Michelle R. Prescott 18 MICHELLE R. PRESCOTT 19 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE and MICHAEL HEUER 20

22 23 24 25 26 27 1

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5

7 RANDALL ROSKELLY, C a s e N o .: 5:25-cv-00888-JGB-DTB 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. [Honorable District Judge, Jesus G. Bernal, Magistrate Judge, David T. 10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; Bristow] MICHAEL HEUER; and DOES 1-10, 11 inclusive,

12 Defendants. JOINT STIPULATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 DISCOVERY MATTER 14 15

16 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 17 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production 18 of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 19 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 20 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court 21 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 22 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 23 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 24 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 25 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 26 13.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 27 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 1 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 2 permission from the court to file material under seal. 3 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court recognizes that 5 pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include the production of information 6 and/or documents that are confidential and/or privileged including the production of 7 information and/or documents which the Court agrees includes: (1) Personal data, 8 including but not limited to social security numbers and similar sensitive identifying 9 information, marital status, family members, educational and employment history, 10 home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical and/or mental health history; 11 and (3) Medical Reports and Photographs. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 12 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 13 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Further, the 14 Court recognizes that discovery may require the production of certain law 15 enforcement records, policies, and procedures not available to the public and the 16 public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, raise security issues, 17 and/or impede investigations. 18 Public disclosure of such material may pose a substantial risk of 19 embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to the individuals whose 20 Confidential Information is disclosed. Accordingly, good cause exists for entry of this 21 Protective Order to facilitate pre-trial disclosure while assuring the safety of these 22 sensitive disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). 23 3. DEFINITIONS 24 3.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 25 3.2 Challenging Party: a Party that challenges the designation of 26 information or items under this Order. 27 3.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 1 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 2 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 3 3.4 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House 4 Counsel (as well as their support staff). 5 3.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 6 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 7 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 3.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 9 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 10 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 11 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 12 3.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 13 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 14 expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 15 3.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. 16 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 17 counsel. 18 3.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 19 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 20 3.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 21 to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have 22 appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 23 has appeared on behalf of that party. 24 3.11 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, 25 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 26 support staffs). 27 3.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 1 3.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 2 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 3 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 4 and their employees and subcontractors. 5 3.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 6 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 7 3.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 8 from a Producing Party. 9 4.

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

Related

Smith v. Dall
13 Cal. 510 (California Supreme Court, 1859)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-roskelly-v-county-of-riverside-cacd-2025.