RANDY LEVINE v. THE CITY OF PASADENA

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 15, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-06247
StatusUnknown

This text of RANDY LEVINE v. THE CITY OF PASADENA (RANDY LEVINE v. THE CITY OF PASADENA) 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
RANDY LEVINE v. THE CITY OF PASADENA, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 MICHELE BEAL BAGNERIS, City Attorney State Bar No. 115423 2 mbagneris@cityofpasadena.net ARNOLD F. LEE, Chief Assistant City Attorney 3 State Bar No. 278610 aflee@cityofpasadena.net 4 AARON K. GANSER, Deputy City Attorney State Bar No. 329337 5 aganser@cityofpasadena.net 100 N. Garfield Avenue, Suite N210 6 Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel.: (626 744-4141 / Fax: (626) 744-4190 7 8 Attorneys for Defendants, City of Pasadena California and Officer Palacios 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 RANDY LEVINE, ) Case No.: 2:25-cv-06247-AJR ) 14 Plaintiff, ) [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 15 ) PROTECTIVE ORDER ) v. 16 ) ) 17 THE CITY OF PASADENA ) (Assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin) CALIFORIA; OFFICER PALACIOS; ) 18 OFFICER ALETORRE; and DOES l to ) 19 30, inclusive, ) ) 20 ) Defendants. ) 21 22 23 1. GENERAL 24 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 25 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 26 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 27 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 28 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 1 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections 2 on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 3 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 4 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties 5 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 6 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 7 Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 8 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 9 material under seal. 10 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 11 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the 12 parties’ representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of 13 confidential records, police officer personnel files, materials protected by the 14 Official Information Privilege, materials protected by California law, as evidenced 15 inter alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 et seq., California Evidence Code 16 section 1040, et seq. and rights to privacy; and in order to expedite the flow of 17 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 18 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 19 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 20 of such material in connection with this action, to address their handling of such 21 material at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective 22 order for such information is justified in this matter. The parties shall not designate 23 any information/documents, as confidential without a good faith belief that such 24 information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 25 and that there is good cause or compelling reason why it should not be part of the 26 public record in this case. 27 // 28 // 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 3 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 4 designation of information or items under this Order. 5 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 6 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 7 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 8 the Good Cause Statement. 9 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 10 their support staff). 11 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 12 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 15 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 16 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 17 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 18 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 19 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 20 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 21 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 22 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 23 outside counsel. 24 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 25 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 26 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 27 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 28 1 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 2 firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. 3 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 4 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 5 support staffs). 6 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 7 Discovery Material in this Action. 8 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 9 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 10 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 11 and their employees and subcontractors. 12 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 13 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 15 Material from a Producing Party. 16 17 3. SCOPE 18 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 19 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 20 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 21 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 22 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 23 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 24 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 25 26 4. DURATION 27 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the court-filed information to be 28 introduced that was previously designated as confidential or maintained pursuant 1 to this protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all 2 members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported 3 by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in 4 advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 5 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing 6 documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when 7 merits-related documents are part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this 8 protective order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial. 9 10 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 11 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. 12 Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under 13 this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that 14 qualifies under the appropriate standards.

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

Related

Latimer v. Groetzinger
21 A. 22 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
RANDY LEVINE v. THE CITY OF PASADENA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randy-levine-v-the-city-of-pasadena-cacd-2025.