Summary
This document is a proposed stipulated protective order governing the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing, and disposition of confidential discovery materials in Eric Rios v. County of Los Angeles. It addresses confidential medical information, peace-officer personnel and investigative records, privileged material, and other sensitive information in a federal civil-rights action.
Holdings
- The court entered the parties' stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials in the action.
- Material designated as confidential under the order may be used only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the action and may be disclosed only to the authorized categories of persons subject to the order's conditions.
- A party or nonparty may challenge a confidentiality designation, but the designating party bears the burden of persuasion, and the material remains protected under the designation until the court rules or the designation is waived or withdrawn.
- Designation of discovery material as confidential does not authorize filing that material under seal; a party seeking to file protected material under seal must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing sealing of the specific material.
- The protective-order protections do not extend beyond commencement of trial for court-filed information to be introduced, subject to any trial judge order based on compelling reasons; after final disposition, protected material generally must be returned or destroyed within the specified period upon written request, subject to counsel's archival-copy exception.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should enter the parties' stipulated protective order governing the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing, and disposition of confidential discovery materials.
- What procedures and protections should govern confidential law-enforcement personnel records, investigative materials, medical records, privileged materials, and other private information produced in discovery.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (10)
- Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Department, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991)(cited)
- Halton v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, at *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)(cited)
- Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 & n.4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995)(cited)
- Maricopa Audubon Society v. United States Forest Service, 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-95 (9th Cir. 1997)(cited)
- Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-71 (N.D. Cal. 1987)(cited)
- Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007)(cited)
- Admiral Insurance Co. v. United States District Court, 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1989)(cited)
- Becerra v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. App. 5th 897 (2020)(cited)
- Walnut Creek Police Officers' Association v. City of Walnut Creek, 33 Cal. App. 5th 940 (2019)(cited)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…