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.

Arellano v. City of Santa Ana

United States District Court, C.D. California

August 1, 2016

JOSE EDUARDO ARELLANO; EVA GLORIA SANCHEZ MEJIA; and T.L.C., a minor, individually and as successor in interest by and through her Next Friend, Diana Magali Calderon, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SANTA ANA, a municipality; CHIEF CARLOS ROJAS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS.

          PROTECTIVE ORDER RE COURT ORDERED PRODUCTION OF SHOOTING REVIEW BOARD DOCUMENTS

          Douglas F. McCormick, United States Magistrate Judge

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, following stipulation of counsel, as follows:

         1. On September 30, 2015, Plaintiff J.M. filed a motion to compel production of documents responsive to their Requests for Production of Documents propounded on the City of Santa Ana, including the Shooting Review Board Memorandum that pertains to the incident that gives rise to this litigation (“Arellano Shooting Review Board Memorandum”). See Pl’s MTC (Doc. 39).

         2. On October 27, 2015, this court heard the plaintiff’s motion and later issued a ruling, ordering the City of Santa Ana to produce certain documents requested by the plaintiff. See 10/29/15 Order (Doc. 45). The Court ordered also that the defendants submit a copy of the Shooting Review Board memorandum that pertains to the shooting that gives rise to this litigation for in camera review.

         3. On December 29, 2015, following in camera review, the magistrate judge ordered production of the Arellano Shooting Review Board Memorandum and other Shooting Review Boards documents for the five years prior to the incident giving rise to this litigation. See 12/29/15 Further Order (Doc. 76).

         4. On January 13, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for review of Magistrate Judge’s December 29, 2015 Order. See Def. Review Mtn. (Doc. 87). On March 14, 2016, Judge Selna heard the defendants’ motion and, later, issued a ruling ordering the City of Santa Ana to produce the Arellano Shooting Review Board Memorandum. In addition, Judge Selna also ordered that the defendants submit all Shooting Review Board Memoranda that are subject to the Magistrate December 29, 2015 Order to magistrate judge to conduct further findings on the documents. See 03/17/16 Order (Doc. 116). Defendants did so on March 29, 2016.

         5. On July 21, 2016, following the in camera review of all Shooting Review Board documents for the five-year time period prior to the incident that gives rise to this litigation, Judge McCormick issued a ruling, ordering the City to produce the documents. See 7/21/16 Order (Doc. 169).

         6. These documents are covered by the following protective order:

         PROTECTIVE ORDER

         The Confidential Documents shall be subject to this Protective Order as follows.

         1. Certain documents produced by the City of Santa Ana that comprise the Confidential Documents may be clearly designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” and be placed in an envelope labeled as such prior to the disclosure. The “CONFIDENTIAL” designation shall be placed on the printed pages of the Confidential Documents in a manner that does not overwrite or make illegible the text of the document.

         2. Each person receiving any of the Confidential Documents shall not disclose to any person or entity, in any manner, including orally, any of the Confidential Documents or any of the information contained therein, except when used for purposes of this litigation pursuant to this protective order.

         3. The Confidential Documents and all information contained therein, may only be disclosed to 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.