The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge
Case filed: April 28, 2011 Assigned to Trial Judge: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson Courtroom: 6, 312 N. Spring Street Assigned to Magistrate: Hon. Margaret A. Nagle Courtroom: 580, Edward R. Roybal Federal Bldg.
PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' STIPULATION
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on the parties' Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order ("Stipulation") filed on August 10, 2011, the terms of the protective order to which the parties have agreed are adopted as a protective order of this Court (which generally shall govern the pretrial phase of this action) except to the extent, as set forth below, that those terms have been substantively modified by the Court's amendment of Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Stipulation.
The parties are expressly cautioned that the designation of any information, document, or thing as "Confidential," "Confidential Documents," "Confidential Material," "Subject to Protective Order," or words of similar effect (hereinafter, collectively "Confidential Information") does not, in and of itself, create any entitlement to file such information, document, or thing, in whole or in part, under seal. Accordingly, reference to this Protective Order or to the parties' designation of any information, document, or thing as "Confidential Information" is wholly insufficient to warrant a filing under seal.
There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. The parties' mere designation of any information, document, or thing as "Confidential Information" does not -- without the submission of competent evidence, in the form of a declaration or declarations, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable -- constitute good cause.
Further, if sealing is requested in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, as opposed to good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration.
Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Protective Order, in the event that this case proceeds to trial, all information, documents, and things discussed or introduced into evidence at trial will become public and available to all members of the public, including the press, unless sufficient cause is shown in advance of trial to proceed otherwise.
TERMS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED TO THE FOLLOWING, this Court hereby orders as follows:
1. The parties may designate as confidential the following:
[A] Any and all completed portions of LAPD Force Investigation Division's Report No. F003-11;
[B] All compelled statements, whether written or recorded, of all involved police officers, city employees, and civilian witnesses;
[C] Any and all photographs, audio or digital video recordings of any evidence related to the underlying event in this case which were taken by or at the discretion of any employee of the City of Los Angeles; all of which Defendants believe might contain information of a privileged, confidential, private or sensitive nature, by affixing to such document or writing a legend, such as "Confidential." "Confidential Documents," "Confidential Material," "Subject to Protective Order," or words of similar effect. This category of documents and writings so designated, and all ...