Estate of Adam Preston Adams v. County of San Bernardino

United States District Court for the Central District of California · June 13, 2025 · No. 5:24-cv-01447-KK-(SHKx)

Summary

This document is an amended stipulated protective order entered in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Estate of Adam Preston Adams v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. 5:24-cv-01447-KK-(SHKx). It governs the designation, disclosure, use, challenge, handling, and final disposition of confidential discovery materials, including medical records and law-enforcement personnel and investigative materials. The order was stipulated by counsel on June 11, 2025, and ordered by Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani on June 13, 2025.

Holdings

  1. Good cause existed to enter the parties' amended stipulated protective order covering qualifying confidential discovery materials.
  2. Protected material may be used only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the action and may be disclosed only to persons and under the conditions specified in the protective order.
  3. Designating parties must limit confidentiality designations to specific material qualifying for protection, and the designating party bears the burden of persuasion in a challenge to a designation.
  4. The protective order does not itself authorize filing protected material under seal; a party seeking to file such material under seal must comply with Central District of California Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific material.
  5. After final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material within 60 days of a written request, subject to the order's archival-copy exception, and violations may be punished through contempt proceedings or monetary sanctions.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether good cause existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to enter an amended stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
  2. What procedures and limitations should govern designation, challenge, disclosure, use, subpoena response, inadvertent production, filing under seal, and disposition of protected discovery materials.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Department, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Hallion v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, at *2-3, *12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012)(followed)
  • Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 n.4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995)(followed)
  • Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668-71 (N.D. Cal. 1987)(followed)
  • Maricopa Audubon Society v. U.S. Forest Service, 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-95 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-77 (D.D.C. 1998)(followed)
  • Admiral Insurance Co. v. U.S. District Court, 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. 3d 822, 828-30 (1985)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…