Sarah Jafari v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 12, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00305·Unknown

Opinion

Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 32 Filed 05/12/22 Page1of17 Page ID#:177 46 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 ze 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION qESs z g5e 11 || SARAH JAFARI, Case No. 2:22-cv-00305-DSF (GJSx) [888 12 Plaintiff, PROPOSED) STIPULATED a pad ‘6 ROTECTIVE ORDER Soe Assigned to Hon. Dale S. Fischer, = unicipal entity: RONRAD THIEME, | “ou” "7 15 an Individual, DOES 1-10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. WW 18 19. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 23 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 24 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 25 ae This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 27 order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. 28

Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 32 Filed 05/12/22 Page 2of17 Page |ID#:178

1 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 2 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 3 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 4 under the applicable legal principles. 6 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to 7 personnel records and institutional procedures within the institution and other 8 materials subject to privacy protections for which special protection from public g 9 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 4 bee 10 || warranted. Defendants contend that limiting disclosure of these documents to the : 5: 11 || context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important law G ecu 12 || enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of law enforcement 3 ou 13 || personnel, institutional safety as a whole, and the public, as well as individual 14 privacy rights of Plaintiff, Defendants, and third parties. Defendants further contend 15 that such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, 16 materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: the United 17 States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 18 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §8§ 19 1040 and 1043 et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; the right to 20 privacy; decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise 21 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 22 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 23 or common law. Defendants also maintain that such confidential materials and 24 information consist of materials entitled to the Official Information Privilege. 25 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include: 26 personnel files; internal institutional procedures and policy, investigative files and 27 documents; email and written correspondence records; and policies and procedures 28 that are kept from the public in the ordinary course of business, as well as other

4.

Case 4/22-cv-00305-DSF-GJS Document 32 Filed 05/12/22 Page 3of17 Page ID#:179

items subject to the Official Information Privilege and other privileges. The Parties 2 reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality pursuant to the terms 3 set forth under Paragraph 6 of this Stipulated Protective Order. 4 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 5 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 6 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 7 parties are permitted to reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 8 and in conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 4 2 9 || serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this a He 10 || matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as est 11 || confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 5 12 || faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 3 oa 13 || there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. = 14 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 15 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 16 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 17 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 18 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 19 to file material under seal. 20 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 21 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 22 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 23 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 24 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 25 Jnc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 26 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 27 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 28 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere

Case 4{22-cv-00305-DSF-GJS Document 32 Filed 05/12/22 Page 4of17 Page ID #:180

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

Sarah Jafari v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Sarah Jafari v. County of Los Angeles (Sarah Jafari v. County of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)