William Scott Findley, Jr. v. County of Orange

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 9, 2020·No. 8:19-cv-02025·Unknown

Opinion

NORMAN J. WATKINS – SBN 87327 nwatkins@lynberg.com JONATHAN C. BOND – SBN 280266 jbond@lynberg.com LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1450 Orange, California 92868 (714) 937-1010 Telephone (714) 937-1003 Facsimile Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ORANGE, LAURIE BETH SCHWARTZ, and MARIO ALVERGUE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SCOTT FINDLEY, JR. and CASE NO. 8:19-cv-02025-DOC(KES) Assigned for All General Purposes to: Hon. David O. Carter Plaintiffs, Courtroom 9D Santa Ana Division

vs. Assigned for Discovery Purposes to: Hon. Karen E. Scott Courtroom 6D COUNTY OF ORANGE; LAURIE Santa Ana Division BETH SCHWARTZ; MARIO ALVERGUE and DOES 1 through 10, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE inclusive, ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Defendants. Action Filed: October 23, 2019 FAC Filed: January 23, 2020 Trial Date: October 20, 2020

TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: 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. Defendants COUNTY OF ORANGE; LAURIE BETH SCHWARTZ; and/or MARIO ALVERGUE (“Defendants”) may be producing documents which documents are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of such information may jeopardize the security of the Orange County Sherriff’s Department (“OCSD”) or Orange County’s operations, or may jeopardize the safety of certain individuals, including other Defendants herein, other Sheriff’s Deputies, Plaintiff(s), or unrelated third parties. Defendants may also be producing documentation containing confidential information such as videos depicting Plaintiffs in a state of partial or full undress/nudity. Defendants may also be producing video, audio, and still photo images related to incidents at issue in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and/or any thereafter filed pleading which videos are not generally available to the public. Defendants may likewise be producing investigative reports generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of which could otherwise violate Plaintiffs, or others’ privacy rights under substantive law or the California or United States Constitution. Likewise, Defendants may be producing information on particular Deputies that is confidential, subject to privacy and other protective laws that is not generally available to the public and may represent a privacy and/or safety concern were said information to become public, such as internal records conventionally considered privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1040. Similar documentation may also be produced by third parties pursuant to requests or subpoenas by Defendants. Fictitiously sued DOES may likewise have a privacy interest in some of the documentation likely to be produced in the discovery phase of this matter, and the documentation is not generally available to the public. Plaintiffs WILLIAM SCOTT FINDLEY, JR. and VERNANNE COHEN (“Plaintiffs”) may be producing documents concerning confidential, private, or embarrassing documentation concerning Plaintiffs, including without limitation personal or private communications between Plaintiffs, or between Plaintiffs and other third parties. Similar documentation may also be produced by third parties pursuant to subpoena. Such information is private to Plaintiffs, unavailable to the general public, and disclosure of said documentation may cause embarrassment to Plaintiffs. As such, information produced by either party, or third parties, may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 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 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2.1 Action: WILLIAM SCOTT FINDLEY, JR, et al. v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al. CASE NO. 8:19-cv-02025-DOC(KES). 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: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 24.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure

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

William Scott Findley, Jr. v. County of Orange, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

William Scott Findley, Jr. v. County of Orange (William Scott Findley, Jr. 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)