Tarik Smith v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 1, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-00545·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 Case No. 5:25-cv-00545-FLA (SK) TARIK SMITH, 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 12 v. ORDER 14 CAMACHO, individually and in her Action Filed: February 28, 2025 Pretrial Conference: *** official capacity, REBECCA Trial Date: *** 15 ZAMORA, individually and in her Assigned to: 16 official capacity and DOES 1-13, Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle- Rocha, District Judge 17 inclusive, Courtroom 6B 18 Defendants. Magistrate Judge Hon. Judge Steve Kim 19 Courtroom 540 20 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 25 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 26 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 27 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 28 1 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 2 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 3 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 4 in Section 12.3 (Filing Protected Material), below, that this Stipulated Protective 5 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 6 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 7 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 9 In connection with this action, Plaintiff and Defendant may produce certain 10 documents, things, materials, or other information derived therefrom that contain 11 personal medical, employment or financial information not available to the public; 12 and/or personnel files, information, Department of Public Social Services records and County Department of Human Resources records; and any confidential 13 information contained therein or in any summary, copy, abstract, or other documents 14 derived in whole or part therefrom. Such information may implicate the privacy 15 interests of the party and are properly protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 16 protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 17 26(c) includes among its express purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from 18 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the 19 Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may 20 be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the 21 Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s 22 privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). 23 California law fiercely protects the confidentiality of juvenile records. See, 24 e.g., Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code section 827 (providing that “the Legislature reaffirms 25 its belief that juvenile court records, in general, should be confidential”). Federal 26 courts have likewise adhered to this confidentiality. See Meyer v. County of San 27 Diego, 2022 WL 395967, *7 (S.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2022) and T.T. v. Cty. of San Diego, 28 1 2020 WL 6118781, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2020) (granting a motion to seal 2 juvenile records because “given the confidential status of plaintiff’s juvenile records 3 pursuant to section 827 of the Welfare and Institutional Code, the Court finds that 4 defendants have articulated compelling reasons in support of their motion to seal”). In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ 5 representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential 6 records, including but not limited to sensitive operational documents (including 7 investigative records) and/or confidential employment/personnel records and 8 information of employees of the County, as well as Plaintiff’s and/or Plaintiff’s 9 children’s medical and/or mental health information, and confidential juvenile 10 dependency court records containing private and sensitive information pertaining to 11 Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s minor child as it relates to their underlying juvenile 12 dependency case which is the subject of this action. The disclosure of the foregoing 13 information to non-parties or others would be harmful to the parties' interests, 14 including Plaintiff. Therefore, this information must be protected. The parties shall 15 not designate any information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief 16 that such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public 17 manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be 18 part of the public record of this case. 19 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 20 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 21 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 22 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 23 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 24 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 25 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 26 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 27 28 1 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 2 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, Tarik Smith v. County of 5 Riverside, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00545-FLA (SKx) 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 7 designation of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 9 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 10 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 11 the Good Cause Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 13 their support staff). 14 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 15 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 18 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 19 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 20 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 22 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 23 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 25 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 26 counsel. 27 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 28 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Tarik Smith v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Tarik Smith v. County of Riverside (Tarik Smith v. County of Riverside) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)