Susan Peck v. County of Orange

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 25, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-04654·Unknown

Opinion

BDaarnb Sartao rEmnelro,e E Hsqa.d [sSel.lB, .E #s1q0. 1[S9.6B7.] #086021] David Clay Washington, Esq. [S.B. #305996] HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079 Emails: bhadsell@hadsellstormer.com dstormer@hadsellstormer.com dwashington@hadsellstormer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUSAN PECK, COURTNEY MONO, and Case No.: 2:19-cv-04654 DSF (AFMx) WHITNEY MONO, individually and as surviving heirs and successors in interest of [Assigned to the Honorable Dale S. PAUL MONO (deceased), Fischer – Courtroom 7D] Plaintiffs, AMENDED JOINT [PROPOSED] vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF- CORONER SANDRA HUTCHENS, in her individual and official capacities, MATTER FOR DETERMINATION JOHNSON, BRAD CARRINGTON, ALEXANDER F. MACKINNON McFATRIDGE, and DOES 1-10, Complaint filed: May 31, 2019 Defendants. Trial Date: December 8, 2020 [Continued from first page] Norman J. Watkins, Esq. S. Frank Harrell, Esq. Jesse K. Cox, Esq. LYNBERG & WATKINS 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite #1450 Orange, California 92868 Telephone: (714) 937-1010 Facsimile: (714) 937-1003 Email: nwatkins@lynberg.com sharrell@lynberg.com jcox@lynberg.com Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF-CORONER SANDRA HUTCHENS, in her individual and official capacities, ANTHONY MONTOYA, AARON McFATRIDGE 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 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. 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; Civil Local 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. This action is likely to involve information which one of more of the parties contend special protection from use for any purpose other than litigation of this action is warranted. Plaintiffs contend that such confidential information includes decedent’s medical records and those of his surviving family, personal information relating to the nature of the relationship between spouses and children of the Decedent, autopsy photographs and other graphic records, and personal financial records, disclosure of which may violate the privacy rights of Plaintiffs, Decedent and potentially third parties. Defendants contend that such confidential information includes internal policies, procedures, and training materials, which are generally not available to the public. This information may be privileged, and its disclosure may impact the County Sheriff’s Department’s operations and safety. Defendants may also be producing documents that contain personal and confidential information regarding individuals which information is generally unavailable to the public, including peace officer personnel records. The disclosure of this information to the public may violate these individuals’ privacy rights. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that the information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that is has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is a good cause why it should not be party of the public record of this case. 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 goodcause. 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 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided bydeclaration. 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 notfeasible. 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: Counsel of Record and House Counsel for the parties herein (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Pa

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

Susan Peck v. County of Orange, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Susan Peck v. County of Orange (Susan Peck v. County of Orange) — 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)