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.

Belden v. The County of San Bernardino

United States District Court, C.D. California

October 31, 2019

PERRY BELDEN, an Individual, and ROBIN OLDS, an Individual, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY HERRERA; and DOE DEPUTIES AND NURSES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

          RINOS & MARTIN, LLP LINDA B. MARTIN, ESQ. (SBN 105445) ADRIANNA C. PAIGE, ESQ. (SBN 204902) Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO and DEPUTY HERRERA

          R. Gary Klausner Honorable District Judge

          PROTECTIVE ORDER

          HON. KENLY KIYA KATO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THIS COURT, THE HONORABLE JUDGE KENLY KIYA KATO presiding, having reviewed the concurrently filed Stipulation for Protective Order including the Good Cause Statement, signed by the attorneys for all parties, as follows:

         1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

         Defendants contend that discovery 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

         This action involves various investigations performed, and arrests made by, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Defendants assert that the underlying incidents involve the identity of third party witnesses, and other confidential or protected information including names, addresses and other private information of witnesses. Documents in this case also include images of the interior of jail facilities and potentially, the identity of law enforcement personnel working on various investigations. Further, Defendants anticipate that plaintiffs will seek confidential documents in this matter which include, but are not limited to, personnel records of law enforcement officers, other employment and training records, information from San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department regarding prior incidents and investigations into those incidents, or other confidential information (including potential information implicating privacy of third parties), not generally available to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Should this information (photos of the investigation, personnel records of those officers involved, addresses of witnesses, etc.) be disclosed without the protection of the proposed protective order, and open access to the information be allowed, the privacy and safety of those involved could be placed at risk.

         Accordingly, to expedite the flow of the 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 and necessary uses of such material in preparation for trial and 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 in this case.

         The Court finds good cause and hereby ORDERS:

         1. DEFINITIONS

         2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit entitled PERRY BELDEN, an Individual, and ROBIN OLDS, an Individual v. THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; DEPUTY HERRERA; and DOE DEPUTIES AND NURSES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.: 5:19-CV-00900-RGK-KK.

         2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order.

         2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it was or 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.

         2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff).

         2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.”

         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.

         2.7 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.

         2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Records or any other outside counsel.

         2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

         2.10 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 include support staff.

         2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs).

         2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action.

         2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that produce 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 subcontractors.

         2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is ...


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.