Dariel Richardson v. State of California et al
Filing
52
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle (ec)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Catherine M. Mathers, Esq. (State Bar No. 221983)
Erin R. Dunkerly, Esq. (State Bar No. 260220)
COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP
1100 El Centro Street
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(626) 243-1100 – FAX (626) 243-1111
Email: cmathers@ccmslaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, LEROY D. BACA, LARRY L. WALDIE, MARVIN
O. CAVANAUGH, PAUL K. TANAKA, ROBERTA ABNER, DENNIS BURNS
and ALEXANDER R. YIM
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; )
)
J.A. FARROW, Commissioner of
California Highway Patrol, individually)
and in his official capacity; COUNTY )
OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES )
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; LEROY )
)
D. BACA, Los Angeles County
Sheriff, individually and in his official )
)
capacity; LARRY L. WALDIE,
Undersheriff of Los Angeles County, )
)
individually and in his official
)
capacity; MARVIN O.
CAVANAUGH, Assistant Sheriff of )
Los Angeles County, individually and )
)
in his official capacity; PAUL K.
)
TANAKA, Assistant Sheriff of Los
DARIEL RICHARDSON, an
individual,
CASE NO. CV 10-9147 VBF (MANx)
[Assigned to the Hon. Valerie Baker
Fairbank in Courtroom 9]
PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED
PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’
STIPULATION
1
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Angeles County, individually and in his)
official capacity; ROBERTA ABNER, )
Chief of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s )
Dept., individually and in her official )
)
capacity; DAVID R. BETKEY,
)
individually and in his official
capacity; RICHARD J. BARRANTES, )
)
individually and in his official
)
capacity; DENNIS BURNS,
)
individually and in his official
)
capacity; ALEXANDER R. YIM,
)
individually and in his official
)
capacity; MARK GRIFFITH, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 10, )
)
)
Defendants.
)
13
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on
14
the parties’ Stipulation (“Stipulation”) filed on July 1, 2011,1 the terms of the
15
protective order to which the parties have agreed are adopted as a protective order of
16
this Court (which generally shall govern the pretrial phase of this action) except to
17
the extent, as set forth below, that those terms have been substantively modified by
18
the Court’s amendment of Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Stipulation.
19
The parties are expressly cautioned that the designation of any information,
20
document, or thing as “confidential,” or other designation(s) used by the parties, does
21
not, in and of itself, create any entitlement to file such information, document, or
22
thing, in whole or in part, under seal. Accordingly, reference to this Protective Order
23
or to the parties’ designation of any information, document, or thing as
24
“confidential,” or other designation(s) used by the parties, is wholly insufficient to
25
warrant a filing under seal.
26
27
1
28
On August 3, 2011, a (Proposed) Order Granting Stipulation for Protective
Order was filed, because it was inadvertently not included as an attachment to the
July 1, 2011 Stipulation.
2
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial
2
proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions,
3
good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. The parties’ mere
4
designation of any information, document, or thing as “confidential,” or other
5
designation(s) used by parties, does not -- without the submission of competent
6
evidence, in the form of a declaration or declarations, establishing that the
7
material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or
8
otherwise protectable -- constitute good cause.
9
Further, if sealing is requested in connection with a dispositive motion or trial,
10
then compelling reasons, as opposed to good cause, for the sealing must be shown,
11
and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be
12
protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir.
13
2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or
14
introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party
15
seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts
16
and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence
17
supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by
18
declaration.
19
Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in
20
its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If
21
documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only
22
the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall
23
be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety
24
should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible.
25
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Protective Order, in the event that
26
this case proceeds to trial, all information, documents, and things discussed or
27
introduced into evidence at trial will become public and available to all members of
28
3
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
the public, including the press, unless sufficient cause is shown in advance of trial to
2
proceed otherwise.
3
4
TERMS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
5
6
7
1.
and (b) below will be referred to collectively as the “confidential materials.”
8
9
The information and/or documentation referred to subparagraphs (a)
a.
Information and/or documentation from the criminal files of
any non-party, including, but not limited to, Christopher Cowzer; and
10
b.
Information and/or documentation from the personnel file of
11
any and all defendants in the LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
12
including but not limited to LEROY D. BACA, LARRY L. WALDIE, MARVIN
13
O. CAVANAUGH, PAUL K. TANAKA, ROBERTA ABNER, DAVID R.
14
BETKEY, RICHARD J. BARRANTES, DENNIS BURNS, ALEXANDER R.
15
YIM, and MARK GRIFFITH.
16
2.
The Court orders that the confidential materials be released to counsel
17
for the respective parties for the purposes of litigation in this matter. The parties and
18
their respective counsel hereby stipulate that the confidential materials shall be used
19
in this litigation as follows:
20
a.
Confidential materials and the information contained therein shall
21
be used solely in connection with this litigation and the preparation of this case, or
22
any related appellate proceeding, and not for any other purpose, including any other
23
litigation or administrative proceedings;
24
25
26
b.
Confidential materials produced in this action shall be designated
by stamping each page of the document “confidential”;
c.
Under no circumstances shall the confidential materials, or the
27
information contained therein, be retained, compiled, stored, used as a database, or
28
disseminated in any form except for the purposes of this litigated matter in
4
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
accordance with this Protective Order or further Order of the Court;
2
d.
The County of Los Angeles (“Defendant County”) and Dariel
3
Richardson (“Plaintiff”) reserve all objections, including but not limited to the
4
objections that particular documents are: confidential or otherwise protected from
5
disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product
6
doctrine or the official information privilege; and/or are not likely to lead to the
7
discovery of admissible evidence and are not relevant to the causes of action raised
8
by this lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(B);
9
10
e.
Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence pertaining to discovery;
11
12
f.
g.
Confidential materials and the information contained therein may
not be disclosed, except as set forth in Paragraph 5(h) below;
15
16
Defendant County reserves all rights and remedies under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence pertaining to discovery;
13
14
Plaintiff reserves all rights and remedies under Federal Rules of
h.
Confidential materials and the information contained therein may
only be disclosed to the following persons/entities:
17
i.
Counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.
18
ii.
Paralegal, law clerk, stenographic, clerical and secretarial
19
personnel regularly employed by counsel referred to in Paragraph 5(h)(i) above.
20
21
iii.
by counsel referred to in Paragraph 5(h)(i) above.
22
23
iv.
v.
25
i.
Any individual approved by the Court.
Confidential materials shall not be divulged to any other person or
entity, including print, radio, and television media;
27
28
The Court and its personnel, including stenographic
reporters necessary for the preparation and processing of this action.
24
26
Expert witnesses retained for the purposes of this litigation
j.
Confidential materials shall not be posted on the Internet or on
any website;
5
PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
k.
If confidential materials are included in any papers to be filed in
2
the court, the party wishing to file such papers shall seek to have them filed
3
under seal, pursuant to procedures set forth in Local Rule 79-5.1; and
4
l.
Nothing in Paragraph 5(c) is intended to prevent authorized
5
government officials for Defendant County from having access to the documents, if
6
they have or had access in the normal course of their job duties;
7
3.
The parties shall cause the substance of this Protective Order to be
8
communicated to, and shall obtain agreement to abide by the Protective Order from,
9
each person or entity, except the Court and its personnel, to whom or which
10
confidential materials are revealed in accordance with this Protective Order.
11
4.
After completion of the judicial process in this case, including any
12
appeals or other termination of this litigation, all confidential materials produced by
13
Defendant County under the provisions of this Protective Order, and copies thereof,
14
except those filed with this Court and any appellate court(s), shall be destroyed or
15
returned to the attorneys of record for Defendant County, Collins Collins Muir +
16
Stewart LLP, at 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, California 91030.
17
5.
That any counsel, expert or consultant retained in the instant case, or
18
investigator retained by counsel for any party to this case, shall not disclose the
19
confidential materials or the information contained therein, in any other court
20
proceedings subject to further order of this Court;
21
22
23
6.
Provisions of this Protective Order insofar as they restrict disclosure
and the use of materials shall be in effect until further order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
27
DATED: September 8, 2011
_____________________________________
MARGARET A. NAGLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
6
PROTECTIVE ORDER
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
