Shawn Thompson v. City of Manhattan Beach, Steve Kitsios, and Shane Smith

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 6, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-03479
StatusUnknown

This text of Shawn Thompson v. City of Manhattan Beach, Steve Kitsios, and Shane Smith (Shawn Thompson v. City of Manhattan Beach, Steve Kitsios, and Shane Smith) 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
Shawn Thompson v. City of Manhattan Beach, Steve Kitsios, and Shane Smith, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

11 James R. Touchstone, Esq., SBN 184584 jrt@jones-mayer.com 22 JONES MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 33 Fullerton, California 92835 Tel (714) 446-1400; Fax (714) 446-1448 44 Attorney for Defendant, 55 Shawn Thompson (Application for substitution pending)

66 Steven J. Rothans, Esq. SBN 106579 srothans@crdlaw.com 77 Kimberly Sarmiento, Esq. SBN 345641 ksarmiento@cardlaw.com 88 CARPENTER, ROTHANS, & DUMONT, LLP 500 South Grand Avenue, 19th Floor 99 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel (714) 228-0400; Fax (714) 228-0401 1100 Attorneys for Defendants, City of Manhattan 1111 Beach, Steve Kitsios, and Shane Smith

1122 Alexis Galindo, Esq. SBN 136643 agalindo@cgsattys.com 1133 Maximiliano Galindo, Esq. SBN 328187 mgalindo@cgsattys.com 1144 CURD, GALINDO, & SMITH, LLP 301 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 1700 1155 Long Beach, CA 90802-4828 Tel (562) 624-1177; Fax (562) 624-1178 1166 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 1177 Mason Lewis

1188 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1199 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2211 MASON LEWIS, Case No: 2:24-cv-03479-WLH-RAO Plaintiff, 2222 Assigned for all purposes to: vs. Hon. Wesley L. Hsu; Courtroom 9D 2233 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 2244 SHAWN THOMPSON, STEVE ORDER KITSIOS, SHANE SMITH, and 2255 DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive;

2266 Defendants.

2277 11 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 33 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 44 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 55 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 66 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 77 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 88 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 99 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 1100 under the applicable legal principles. 1111 1122 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 1133 This action is likely to involve confidential information from the Manhattan 1144 Beach Police Department’s criminal investigation and records from Plaintiff 1155 Mason Lewis’s parallel criminal proceedings for which special protection from 1166 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 1177 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 1188 consist of, among other things, investigative materials, witness interviews, data 1199 extractions and reports, and other information otherwise generally unavailable to 2200 the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure 2211 under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 2222 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 2233 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 2244 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 2255 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in 2266 the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 2277 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this

matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 11 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good

22 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 33 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 44 55 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 66 SEAL 77 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 88 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 99 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 1100 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 1111 from the court to file material under seal. 1122 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 1133 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 1144 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 1155 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. 1166 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. 1177 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 1188 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 1199 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 2200 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under 2211 seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 2222 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 2233 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 2244 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 2255 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 2266 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 2277 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. 11 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed

22 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 33 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 44 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 55 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 66 declaration. 77 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 88 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 99 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 1100 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 1111 portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 1122 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 1133 redaction is not feasible. 1144 1155 2. DEFINITIONS 1166 2.1 Action: Mason Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach, et al., CV24- 1177 03479-WLH-RAOx and Mary Swan Lewis v. City of Manhattan Beach, et al., 1188 2:23-cv-03319-WLH-RAO. 1199 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 2200 designation of information or items under this Order. 2211 A. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 2222 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 2233 things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2244 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2255 B. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel 2266 (as well as their support staff). 2277 C. 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates

information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 11 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.”

22 D.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Babcock v. Cook
20 N.W. 689 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1884)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shawn Thompson v. City of Manhattan Beach, Steve Kitsios, and Shane Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shawn-thompson-v-city-of-manhattan-beach-steve-kitsios-and-shane-smith-cacd-2025.