United States District Court, C.D. California
MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, ANNA HERNANDEZ, A.A.H., a minor, and A.H., a minor, by and through their guardian ad Litem, CELIA HERNANDEZ, individually and as successors in interest to MIGUEL A. HERNANDEZ, deceased, and A.I.H., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, LAKEN TAMBUNTING, individually and as successor in interest to MIGUEL A. HERNANDEZ, deceased, Plaintiffs,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; NATHAN GILLESPIE; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.
COLLINS COLLINS MUIR STEWART LLP TOMAS A. GUTERRES REBECCA
S. KING AUDRA C. CALL Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES and NATHAN GILLESPIE
OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURTON Dale K.
Galipo, Esq. Renee V. Masongsong, Esq. John Burton, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John F. Walter Judge.
STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIAL
Honorable Suzanne H. Seal United States District/Magistrate
PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS
in this action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which
special protection from public disclosure and from use for
any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be
warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and
petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated
Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order
does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or
responses to discovery and that the protection it affords
from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited
information or items that are entitled to confidential
treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties
further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below,
that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them
to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule
79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the
standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission
from the court to file material under seal.
GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT
case plaintiffs are making claims of unlawful arrest,
detention, excessive force, Monell claims, and
wrongful death against the defendants. Plaintiffs have
requested internal investigation reports, personnel file of
Deputy Nathan Gillespie, written policies, medical records,
criminal histories of Miguel Hernandez and Michael Mofford,
autopsy report, and disciplinary information. Some of these
documents are confidential and/or are not available to the
general public, and also contain sensitive personal/private
information about third parties. Plaintiffs have also
requested dispatch calls and other Sheriffs Department radio
communications concerning the incident in this case. These
recordings also contain information about unrelated matters
and third parties.
United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of
protective orders to safeguard the privacy of individuals.
See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20,
34-37(1984). The Ninth Circuit has stated that discovery
should be more limited with regard to third parties to
protect them from harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of
confidential documents. Dart Industries Co. v. Westwood
Chemical Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980).
Further, under California law peace officer personnel records
are confidential. California Evidence Code Sections 1043,
1045; Pitchess v. Super.Ct. (Echeveria) (1974) 11
C3d 531, 537-540, 113 CR 897, 901-903. In this case, the
documents and data sought implicate privacy rights for Deputy
Nathan Gillespie as well as third parties.
documents on these matters contain confidential and sensitive
information regarding the workings of the Los Angeles
Sheriffs Department. General disclosure of this information
would harm such interests and prevent the Department from
effectively performing its duties to the public. Therefore,
the Sheriffs Department has a strong security interest in
preventing general disclosure of this information.
is requesting all Sheriffs Department written guidelines,
policies and procedures. These documents and communications
also are not generally available to the public and contain
sensitive and confidential information concerning the
operation of the Sheriffs Department. General knowledge of
the policies and procedures of the Sheriffs Department would
endanger the security of Sheriffs Department personnel who
perform their duties, as criminals, detainees and arrestees
could anticipate Department tactics, thus nullifying their
effectiveness and threatening the safety of law enforcement
personnel. See Kelly v. City of San Jose (N.D. Cal.
1987)114 F.R.D. 653, 666. ("A police department's
interest in not permitting the general public to have access
to such materials [manuals and memoranda on law enforcement
policies] may be weighty. Legitimate law enforcement efforts
could be frustrated, and the lives of officers could be
endangered, if anyone who wanted to could learn details about
how officers are trained to accomplish their missions in
to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt
resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery
materials, to adequately protect information the parties are
entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are
permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in
preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their
handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of
justice, a protective order for such information is justified
in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that
information will not be designated as confidential for
tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a
good faith belief that it has been maintained in a
confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why
it should not be part of the public record of this case.
Action: this pending federal law suit 2.2
Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that
challenges the designation of information or items under this
"CONFIDENTIAL" Information or Items:
information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or
maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified
above in the Good Cause Statement.
Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel
(as well as their support staff).
Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that
designates information or items that it produces in
disclosures or in responses to discovery as
"CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY."
2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or
information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it
is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other
things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that
are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to
discovery in this matter.
Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or
experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has
been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert
witness or as a consultant in this Action.
House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a
party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside
Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel.
Non-Party: any natural person, partnership,
corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as
a Party to this action.
Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not
employees of a party to this Action but are retained to
represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared
in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with
a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and
includes support staff.
Party: any party to this Action, including all of
its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained
experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support
Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces
Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action.
Professional Vendors: persons or entities that
provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying,
videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or
demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data
in any form or medium) and their employees and
Protected Material: Disclosure or Discovery Material
that is designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or
"ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY" including:
(i) Personnel file for Nathan Gillespie
(ii) Internal Affairs/Homicide investigation file
(iii) Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department written
guidelines, policies, ...