William Scott Findley, Jr. v. County of Orange

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 9, 2020
Docket8:19-cv-02025
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 NORMAN J. WATKINS – SBN 87327 nwatkins@lynberg.com 2 JONATHAN C. BOND – SBN 280266 jbond@lynberg.com 3 LYNBERG & WATKINS 4 A Professional Corporation 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1450 5 Orange, California 92868 (714) 937-1010 Telephone 6 (714) 937-1003 Facsimile 7 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF ORANGE, LAURIE BETH SCHWARTZ, 8 and MARIO ALVERGUE

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 WILLIAM SCOTT FINDLEY, JR. and CASE NO. 8:19-cv-02025-DOC(KES) 13 VERNANNE COHEN, Assigned for All General Purposes to: 14 Hon. David O. Carter Plaintiffs, Courtroom 9D 15 Santa Ana Division

16 vs. Assigned for Discovery Purposes to: Hon. Karen E. Scott 17 Courtroom 6D COUNTY OF ORANGE; LAURIE Santa Ana Division 18 BETH SCHWARTZ; MARIO ALVERGUE and DOES 1 through 10, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 19 inclusive, ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 20 Defendants. Action Filed: October 23, 2019 21 FAC Filed: January 23, 2020 Trial Date: October 20, 2020 22

23 24 25 26 27 1 TO THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: 2 I. A STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER IS WARRANTED 3 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 5 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 6 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 7 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 8 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 9 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 10 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 11 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 12 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 13 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 14 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 15 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 16 the court to file material under seal. 17 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 Defendants COUNTY OF ORANGE; LAURIE BETH SCHWARTZ; and/or 19 MARIO ALVERGUE (“Defendants”) may be producing documents which 20 documents are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of such information 21 may jeopardize the security of the Orange County Sherriff’s Department (“OCSD”) 22 or Orange County’s operations, or may jeopardize the safety of certain individuals, 23 including other Defendants herein, other Sheriff’s Deputies, Plaintiff(s), or unrelated 24 third parties. Defendants may also be producing documentation containing 25 confidential information such as videos depicting Plaintiffs in a state of partial or full 26 undress/nudity. Defendants may also be producing video, audio, and still photo 27 images related to incidents at issue in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and/or 1 any thereafter filed pleading which videos are not generally available to the public. 2 Defendants may likewise be producing investigative reports generally unavailable to 3 the public, the disclosure of which could otherwise violate Plaintiffs, or others’ 4 privacy rights under substantive law or the California or United States Constitution. 5 Likewise, Defendants may be producing information on particular Deputies that is 6 confidential, subject to privacy and other protective laws that is not generally 7 available to the public and may represent a privacy and/or safety concern were said 8 information to become public, such as internal records conventionally considered 9 privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1040. Similar documentation may 10 also be produced by third parties pursuant to requests or subpoenas by Defendants. 11 Fictitiously sued DOES may likewise have a privacy interest in some of the 12 documentation likely to be produced in the discovery phase of this matter, and the 13 documentation is not generally available to the public. 14 Plaintiffs WILLIAM SCOTT FINDLEY, JR. and VERNANNE COHEN 15 (“Plaintiffs”) may be producing documents concerning confidential, private, or 16 embarrassing documentation concerning Plaintiffs, including without limitation 17 personal or private communications between Plaintiffs, or between Plaintiffs and 18 other third parties. Similar documentation may also be produced by third parties 19 pursuant to subpoena. Such information is private to Plaintiffs, unavailable to the 20 general public, and disclosure of said documentation may cause embarrassment to 21 Plaintiffs. 22 As such, information produced by either party, or third parties, may be 23 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 24 rules, case decisions, or common law. 25 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 26 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 27 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 1 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 2 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 3 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 4 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 5 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 6 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 7 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 8 II. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: WILLIAM SCOTT FINDLEY, JR, et al. v. COUNTY OF 10 ORANGE, et al. CASE NO. 8:19-cv-02025-DOC(KES). 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 12 designation of information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 14 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 16 Cause Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 18 their support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 23 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 24 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 25 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 24.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 27 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 1 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 3 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 4 counsel. 5 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 6 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 7 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 8 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 9 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 10 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes 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)
William Scott Findley, Jr. v. County of Orange, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-scott-findley-jr-v-county-of-orange-cacd-2020.