The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge
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 Protective Order for District Attorney Files ("Stipulation") filed on December 23, 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 the introductory paragraph and paragraphs 5(e) and (f) of the Stipulation.
The parties are expressly cautioned that the designation of any information, document, or thing as "PROTECTED DOCUMENTS," 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 "PROTECTED DOCUMENTS," 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 "PROTECTED DOCUMENTS," 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
Plaintiff Robert Yousefian ( "Plaintiff"), and the Office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney, District Attorney (referred to as "DA"), through their respective attorneys, have stipulated, agreed, and requested that this Court enter the following Protective Order regarding (a) documents and materials from the District Attorney's files that the DA provides to Plaintiff during this civil action; (b) any related testimony provided at a deposition in this matter; and (c) any reference to such documents or testimony in the parties' or witnesses' pleadings or papers submitted to the Court:
1. The attorney for Plaintiff issued a deposition subpoenas duces tecum dated October 11, 2011, by serving the DA with a subpoena for production, inspection, and copying of the following:
"1. The complete file in connection with The People of the State of California v. Robert Yousefian, Case No.: GA071376"
2. The DA has complied in part, and will produce further documents, in the Office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's possession, custody, or control, in compliance with the subpoena duces tecum issued as noted in paragraph 1 above. Specifically, the DA will produce, subject to the Protective Order as set forth below, the attorney notes from Case No.: GA071376 in its possession, custody or control.
3. The DA maintains and asserts through this Stipulation and its objections to the subpoena, that it has a legitimate need to limit access of information on the grounds that disclosure of information in the materials requested would (a) implicate the subjects' rights to privacy, (b) endanger the personal safety of the subjects, (c) disclose confidential official information, (d) disclose attorney work product, (e) harm and interfere with other criminal prosecutions, and (f) disclose information protected by the deliberative processes privilege. The DA maintains and asserts that it has a legitimate need to limit access to information about internal decision making for the conduct and course of prosecutions. The DA maintains and asserts that it has a legitimate need to ...