Tamika Fair v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 28, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05574
StatusUnknown

This text of Tamika Fair v. County of Los Angeles (Tamika Fair 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
Tamika Fair v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 Thomas C. Hurrell, State Bar No. 119876 E-Mail: thurrell@hurrellcantrall.com 2 Erin K. Hoar, State Bar No. 311332 E-Mail: ehoar@hurrellcantrall.com 3 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1300 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 426-2000 5 Facsimile: (213) 426-2020 6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and DEPUTY DANIEL SANDOVAL (erroneously sued as Deputy Sandoval) 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 TAMIKA FAIR, an individual, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-05574-DSF-AGR 13 Plaintiff, [Assigned to Hon. Dale S. Fischer, Courtroom “7D”] 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a PROTECTIVE ORDER public entity; DEPUTY SANDOVAL, GOVERNING PRODUCTION OF 16 an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, “CONFIDENTIAL” inclusive, INFORMATION 17 Defendants. 18 19 I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or 21 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 22 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 23 Accordingly, the Court hereby enters the following Protective Order (hereafter “this 24 Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 25 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 26 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 27 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to 3 personnel records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which 4 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 5 prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to 6 the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important 7 law enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the 8 public, as well as individual privacy rights of Plaintiff, Deputy Sandoval, individuals 9 likely to be named in the future, and third parties. Such confidential materials and 10 information consist of, among other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or 11 protections under the following: the United States Constitution, First Amendment; 12 the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 13 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et seq.; the Privacy 14 Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 15 of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional law relating to such provisions; 16 and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 17 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 18 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that such 19 confidential materials and information consist of materials entitled to the Official 20 Information Privilege. 21 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include but is 22 not be limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email 23 and written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from 24 the public in the ordinary course of business, as well as other items subject to the 25 Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential information with 26 respect to the Plaintiff may include but is not be limited to: employment and 27 financial records; email and written correspondence records; and psychological and 1 and treatment plans. 2 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 3 pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this 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 reasonably use such material in preparation for and in 8 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 9 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 10 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 11 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 12 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 13 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 14 III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 15 SEAL 16 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 17 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 18 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 19 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 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 Inc., 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 1 designation of material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission 2 of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be 3 filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 4 constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to dispositive 5 motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must 6 be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific 7 interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 8 (9th Cir. 2010). 9 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 10 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 11 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 12 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 13 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 14 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 15 IV. DEFINITIONS 16 4.1 Action: Tamika Fair v. COLA, et al. (2:19-cv-05574-DSF-AGR) 17 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 18 of information or items under this Order. 19 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 20 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible 21 things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and 22 as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 23 4.4 Counsel: General Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 24 their support staff).

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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tamika Fair v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tamika-fair-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2020.