Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dariel Richardson, An Individual v. State of California

September 8, 2011

DARIEL RICHARDSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
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 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.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge

[Assigned to the Hon. Valerie Baker Fairbank in Courtroom 9]

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 ("Stipulation") filed on July 1, 2011,*fn1 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 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Stipulation.

The parties are expressly cautioned that the designation of any information, document, or thing as "confidential," or other designation(s) used by the parties, 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," or other designation(s) used by the parties, 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," or other designation(s) used by parties,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

1. The information and/or documentation referred to subparagraphs (a) and (b) below will be referred to collectively as the "confidential materials."

a. Information and/or documentation from the criminal files of any non-party, including, but not limited to, Christopher Cowzer; and

b. Information and/or documentation from the personnel file of any and all defendants in the LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, including but not limited to LEROY D. BACA, LARRY L. WALDIE, MARVIN

O. CAVANAUGH, PAUL K. TANAKA, ROBERTA ABNER, DAVID R. BETKEY, RICHARD J. BARRANTES, DENNIS BURNS, ALEXANDER R. YIM, and MARK GRIFFITH.

2. The Court orders that the confidential materials be released to counsel for the respective parties for the purposes of litigation in this matter. The parties and their respective counsel hereby stipulate that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.