Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 15, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-00888·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

By: /s/ Michelle R. Prescott MICHELLE R. PRESCOTT Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE and MICHAEL HEUER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

Defendants. JOINT STIPULATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER DISCOVERY MATTER

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

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

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

Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside (Randall Roskelly v. County of Riverside) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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