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.

Hanline v. County of Ventura

United States District Court, C.D. California

March 10, 2017

MICHAEL RAY HANLINE, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF VENTURA, OFFICE OF THE VENTURA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; LOUIS SAMONSKY; RICHARD RODRIGUEZ; CHARLOTTE McCOY, as Successor in Interest to MARTIN McCOY; and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, Defendant.

          Tomas A. Guterres, Esq. (State Bar No. 152729) Audra C. Call, Esq. (State Bar No. 252804) Carl B. Arias, Esq. (State Bar No. 205068) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR STEWART LLP Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF VENTURA, OFFICE OF THE VENTURA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and RICHARD RODRIGUEZ

          [ASSIGNED TO THE HON. VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, COURTROOM 8A, 8TH FLOOR] [PROPOSED] ORDER TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

          HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Based upon the stipulation of the parties and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS ORDERED THAT pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c), the following information is protected and precluded from publication as follows:

         1. Information contained in the personnel files of MARTIN McCOY and RICHARD RODRIGUEZ which is confidential and has not been made public, including, but not limited to, any and all citizen's complaints and/or complaints, reviews, or discipline initiated by other law enforcement personnel and any training records.

         2. Good cause exists for issuance of a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) to facilitate the production of documents and information responsive to the discovery requests of Plaintiff and to balance the privacy interests and protection of information afforded to law enforcement officers in the state of California including MARTIN McCOY and RICHARD RODRIGUEZ that DEFENDANTS contend is statutorily deemed confidential and protected by California Evidence Code section 1040 et seq., the privilege for official information (Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990)), California Penal Code section 832.5 et seq., and California Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045. Good cause further exists because if this confidential information were made public in this proceeding, it could allow for misuse of the peace officer personnel information and other official information in other judicial and administrative proceedings.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

         3. The information and/or documentation referred to in Paragraph 1 above will be referred to as the “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Court orders that the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION be released to PLAINTIFF's counsel for purposes of litigation in this matter. The parties and their respective counsel hereby stipulate that the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall be used in this litigation as follows:

a. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall be used solely in connection with this litigation and the preparation of this case, or any related appellate proceeding, and not for any other purpose, including any other litigation or administrative proceedings. Further, PLAINTIFF's Counsel agrees that the designated personnel files shall not be shared with, or provided to PLAINTIFF and/or any other unauthorized persons and is being provided under an “attorneys' eyes only” provision.
b. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION produced in this action may be designated by DEFENDANTS by marking each page of the document(s) with a stamp stating “CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Order”.
c. Testimony taken at a deposition, conference, hearing, or trial may be designated as confidential by making a statement to that effect on the record at the deposition or other proceeding. Arrangements shall be made with the court reporter taking and transcribing such proceeding to separately bind such portions of the transcript containing information designated as confidential, and to label such portions appropriately and shall be treated the same as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
d. At any time after receipt of documents labeled “CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Order, ” PLAINTIFF may provide DEFENDANTS with a written objection to the classification of specific documents as “CONFIDENTIAL” and the basis for PLAINTIFF's objection. Upon receipt of such written objection, the DEFENDANTS shall provide a written response to PLAINTIFF within three business days. If the DEFENDANTS do not agree with the position of PLAINTIFF, the PLAINTIFF shall have the option of proceeding with a discovery motion, pursuant to Local Rule 37 et seq., contesting the confidential nature of the disputed documents. The parties shall comply with the meet and confer requirements of Local 37 et seq. prior to the filing of any such motion. The DEFENDANTS shall bear the burden of establishing the confidential nature of the disputed documents.
e. Under no circumstances shall the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, or the information contained therein, be retained, compiled, stored, used as a database, or disseminated, in any form, except for purposes of this litigated matter in accordance with this Protective Order or by further order of the Court.
f. DEFENDANTS reserve all objections, including but not limited to the following objections: on grounds that particular documents are CONFIDENTIAL by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine; official information privilege; are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as such are not relevant to the causes of action raised by this lawsuit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(B); and all remedies under the code, including the right to recess the deposition to bring a protective order before the Court.
g. PLAINTIFF reserves all rights and remedies under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of ...

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.