Sanchez Gallegos v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 14, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00112
StatusUnknown

This text of Sanchez Gallegos v. County of Los Angeles (Sanchez Gallegos v. County of Los Angeles) 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
Sanchez Gallegos v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-00112-ODW-RAO Document 14 Filed 02/14/23 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:156

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 GLORIA SANCHEZ GALLEGOS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00112-ODW-RAO 13 Individually and as successor in Interest to AGUSTIN FLORES 14 SANCHEZ STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 15 Plaintiff, 16 v.

17 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; JASEN TAPIA, an 18 Individual; RAYMOND ROMERO SOTO, an Individual; TIMOTHY 19 GARCIA, an Individual; JULIO CHAVEZ RUIZ, an Individual ; and 20 DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive. 21 Defendant.

23 24 25

26 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. Case 2:23-cv-00112-ODW-RAO Document 14 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:157

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the County of Los Angeles petition the 6 Court to enter the following Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 11 Section 13.3, below, that this Protective Order does not entitle them to file 12 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 13 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 14 permission from the court to file material under seal. Discovery in this action is 15 likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 16 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 17 than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 18 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 19 Good cause exists for entry of this order as Plaintiff is seeking and Defendant 20 may produce, among other things, internal, security sensitive, third party and law 21 enforcement private and confidential information, administrative and institutional 22 documents, which contain sensitive information that the County of Los Angeles 23 believes need special protection from public disclosure. 24 The documents identified in this Protective Order, which Defendant believes 25 in good faith constitute or embody confidential information which the County of 26 Los Angeles maintains as strictly confidential and are otherwise generally 27 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 28 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 2 Case 2:23-cv-00112-ODW-RAO Document 14 Filed 02/14/23 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:158

1 law, are therefore entitled to heightened protection from disclosure. Accordingly, to 2 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 3 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 4 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 5 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 6 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 7 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 8 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 9 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 10 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 11 should not be part of the public record of this case. 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 15 designation of information or items under this Order. 16 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 21 their support staff), including Plaintiff Pro Per. 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 23 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 24 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 26 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 27 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 28 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3 Case 2:23-cv-00112-ODW-RAO Document 14 Filed 02/14/23 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:159

1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 3 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 6 counsel. 7 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 8 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 10 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 11 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 12 which has appeared on behalf of that party and includes support staff. 13 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 14 board, departments, divisions, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside 15 Counsel of Record (and their support staff). 16 2.12 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 17 Discovery Material in this Action. 18 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 19 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 20 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 21 and their employees and subcontractors. 22 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 23 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 2.15 Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 25 Material from a Producing Party. 26 27 28 4 Case 2:23-cv-00112-ODW-RAO Document 14 Filed 02/14/23 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:160

1 3. SCOPE 2 The protections conferred by this Proposed Protective Order and Order cover 3 not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied 4 or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 5 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 6 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 7 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 8 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 9 4.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sanchez Gallegos v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-gallegos-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.