Victor Diaz Sandoval v. County of Riverside

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 3, 2025·No. 5:22-cv-01319·Unknown

Opinion

7 10 VICTOR DIAZ SANDOVAL 11 Case No. 5:22-cv-01319-CV-GJS Plaintiff, 12 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al. 14 Defendant. Hon. Cynthia Valenzuela 15 United States District Judge 16

Hon. Gail J. Standish 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18

Trial Date: Not Yet Set 19 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 disclosure 24 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 25 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 26 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 27 1 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 2 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 3 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 5 This action involves jail records and peace officer and law enforcement records, 6 including, but not limited to, audio and video recordings. Such confidential and 7 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, photographs, 8 audio and video recordings, reports, and other documents pertaining to open criminal 9 investigations and pending prosecutions, peace officer records of named Defendants, 10 sections of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Corrections Division Policy 11 Manual, jail records, including information and images implicating privacy rights of 12 third parties, and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 13 may be privileged or otherwise generally protected from disclosure under state or 14 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 15 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 16 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 17 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 18 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 19 their handling of at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective 20 order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 21 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing 22 be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 23 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of 24 the public record in this case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 1 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 2 material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 8 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 9 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 10 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 11 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 12 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 13 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 14 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 15 constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 18 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 19 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 20 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 21 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 22 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 23 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 24 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 26 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 27 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 1 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 2 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 6 of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 8 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 9 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 10 Statement. 11 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 12 support staff). 13 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 17 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 19 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 22 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 25 counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 27 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 1 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 2 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 3 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 4 appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 5 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 7 support staffs). 8 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 9 Discovery Material in this Action.

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

Victor Diaz Sandoval v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Victor Diaz Sandoval v. County of Riverside (Victor Diaz Sandoval v. County of Riverside) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)