The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge
Hon. Dean D. Pregerson- Ctrm. 3, 2 Fl. nd
Hon. Mag. Margaret A. Nagle- Ctrm. 580 Roybal
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 for Proposed Order and [Proposed] Order ("Stipulation") filed on August 3, 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 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 of, and Attachment "A" to, the Stipulation.
The parties are expressly cautioned that the designation of any information, document, or thing as "Confidential," "Confidential Document(s)," "Confidential Material," or other similar designation(s) used by the parties, and/or all confidential or privileged information derived therefrom (singularly and collectively referenced as "Confidential Information") does not, in and of itself, create any entitlement to file such Confidential Information, 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 apparently have endeavored, through the introductory language in their Stipulation, to make a prospective showing of good cause. A prospective showing of good cause cannot be made, however, because a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons (see below) for filing under seal, with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to each item designated as Confidential Information which a party seeks to have filed 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 THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
1. Defendants (hereinafter "Disclosing Party(ies)") may designate as confidential the Force Investigation Division ("FID") Report of the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") or any other document or writing that they, in good faith, believe is protected from disclosure within the meaning of FRCivP 26(g), in that they believe the document contains confidential or private information. Such documents may be classified as subject to this Protective Order by marking each document or writing with a watermark, such as "Confidential," "Confidential Document(s)," "Confidential Material," "Subject to Protective Order," or words of a similar effect. Documents and writings so designated, and all privileged information derived therefrom, i.e.,"Confidential Information," shall be treated in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order.
2. Confidential Information may be used by the persons receiving such information [hereinafter "Receiving Party(ies)"] only for the purpose of litigation of this case and for such other purposes as permitted by law.
3. Subject to the further conditions imposed by this Protective Order, the Confidential Information may only be disclosed to the Court and ...