Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 28, 2023
Docket2:21-cv-09114
StatusUnknown

This text of Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina (Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina) 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
Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 RONNIE PARHAM, Case No. 2:21-cv-09114-FLA-GJS 14 Plaintiff, Honorable Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish 15 vs. First Street Courthouse, Crtrm 6B 16 C NI . T RY O O BLF EW SE (#S 4T 5 C 1)O ; V OI FN FA IC; EO RF FICER [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 17 CARLOS GONZALEZ (#444); PROTECTIVE ORDER1 OFFICER A. HERNANDEZ (#395); 18 OFFICER MATTHEW MUNOZ (#445) and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 23 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 24 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 25 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under 28 Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. - 1 - 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. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case may include matters that are confidential and privileged and may require the discovery of and/or production of documents pertaining to the City of West Covina Police Department’s investigation of the underlying criminal activities, as well as peace officer personnel file information and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; and (5) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, if any, concerning an event or transaction in which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties. The Defendants contend that such information is privileged as official information and subject to rights of privacy. See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 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, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Further, discovery may require depositions, written discovery and/or the production of certain West Covina Police Department Policies and Procedures and peace officer training information the public disclosure of which could comprise officer safety, and/or raise security issues. Additionally, the Defendants contend that public disclosure of such material and information poses a substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression and/or physical harm to peace officers whose confidential information is disclosed. The Parties further agree that the risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees due to the nature of their profession. Finally, the Defendants contend that the benefit of public disclosure of confidential information is minimal while the potential - 2 - C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 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 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the - 3 - 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: this pending federal lawsuit. 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 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an - 4 - 2.8 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronnie-parham-v-city-of-west-covina-cacd-2023.