Valerie Arismendez v. Deputy Velasquez

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 30, 2019
Docket2:19-cv-08767
StatusUnknown

This text of Valerie Arismendez v. Deputy Velasquez (Valerie Arismendez v. Deputy Velasquez) 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
Valerie Arismendez v. Deputy Velasquez, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION Ul 19 VALERIE ARISMENDEZ CASE NO. 2:19-cv-08767-CJC (SSx) 13 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY MATTER 14 v. □□□ 15 ROTECTIVE ORDER DEPUTY See DEPUTY GOVERNING PRODUCTION OF 16 | BAEK; DEPUTY NEZ; DEPUTY | “CONFIDENTIAL” NOLASCO; COUNTY OF LOS.” INFORMATION 17 || ANGELES; and DOES 1-235, inclusive. 18 Defendants. [Assigned to Hon. Cormac J. Carney ourtroom “7C”] 19 {Discovery Document: Referred to 20 | □□□ _| Magistrate Susanne H. Segal] 21 22 || I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential o1 24 || private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 25 || for any purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted. Accordingly. 26 ||the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 27 ||[Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order (hereafter “this Order”). The parties 28 || acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures □□

1 || responses to discovery; and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 2 || use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 3 || treatment under the applicable legal principles. 4/11. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to 6 ||personnel records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which 7 || special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 8 || prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to 2 9 || the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important 10 || law enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the 11 || public, as well as the privacy rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants, and third 12 || party witnesses. Such confidential materials and information consists of, among 13 || other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: 14||the United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, 15 || Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California 16 || Evidence Code §$§ 1040 and 1043, et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a:; 17 || Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 18 || 104-191, decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise 19 || generally unavailable to the public; or which may be privileged or otherwise 20 || protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 21 |;}or common law. Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and 22 || information consists of materials entitled to the Official Information Privilege. 23 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include but is 24 ||not be limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email 25 ||and written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from 26 ||the public in the ordinary course of business; as well as other items subject to the 27 || Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential information with 28 ||respect to the Plaintiff may include but is not be limited to: email and written

1 || correspondence records; and psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, 2 || and treatment plans. 3 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 4 || pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 5 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information; to facilitate the prompt 6||/resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials; to adequately || protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential; to ensure that the 8 □□ parties are permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in g 9 || conduct of trial; to address their handling at the end of the litigation; and serve the 10 || ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 11 || 1s the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 12 || tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 13 || has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner; and there is good cause 14 || why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 15||0I. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 16 SEAL 17 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 18 || Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 19 || Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 20 || be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 21 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 22 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 23 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 24 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 25 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 26 ||Jnc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 27 ||require good cause showing, and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 28 ||reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with

||respect to material that a party seeks to file under seal}. The parties’ mere 2 || designation of material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission 3||of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be 4|| filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 5 constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to dispositive 6 || motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must 7 || be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific 8 || interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 2 9 || (9th Cir. 2010). Be 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 11 |/ its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 12 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 13 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 14|/shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 15 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 16)1IV. DEFINITIONS 17 4.1 Action: Valerie Arismendez v. Deputy Velasquez, et al., Case No. 2:19- 18 || cv-08767 CJC (SSx). 19 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 20 || of information or items under this Order. 21 43 SCONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 22 ||the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible 23 || things that qualify for protection under federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and 24 || as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 25 4.4 Counsel: General Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 26 || 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)
Valerie Arismendez v. Deputy Velasquez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valerie-arismendez-v-deputy-velasquez-cacd-2019.