United States District Court, C.D. California
KARLA GARCIA ARANDA, an individual; ALFREDO ARANDA, an individual; and Minor Plaintiff B.A., by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Robert Jacobs, Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, a subdivision of the County of Los Angeles; RUBEN JIMENEZ, an individual; MELISSA RAMIREZ, an individual; LYDIA BUENO, an individual; ALEXANDRA RONCES, an individual; GLADYS ESCOBEDO, an individual; EVITA SALAS, an individual, ANTONIA LOPEZ, an individual; RACHEL SIMONS, an individual; GLORIA MEJIA, an individual; STEPHANIE MORALES, an individual; LAURA LUNA, an individual; SANDRA JIMENEZ, an individual; OFFICER PACHECO, an individual; OFFICER ESPINOZA, an individual, and DOES 1- 10, Defendants.
Dan
Stormer, Esq. Brian Olney, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RENICK &
DAI LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Olu K.
Orange, Esq. Rachel Steinback Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Honorable R. Gary Klausner, Judge
PROTECTIVE ORDER [1]
HON.
ROZELLA A. OLIVER United States Magistrate Judge
1.
A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS
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, Plaintiffs hereby petition the Court
to enter the following Protective Order. This Order does not
confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to
discovery and 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.
B.
GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT
This
action is likely to involve personal health and education
information of adults and a minor, information regarding the
physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of a minor, and
juvenile proceedings involving the separation of a minor from
his parents for more than two years, for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any
purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted,
and the disclosure of which would seriously invade
Plaintiffs' protected privacy rights. Such confidential
and proprietary materials and information consist of,
Plaintiff Karla Garcia Aranda's medical records, minor
Plaintiff B.A.'s medical records, B.A.'s education
records, records containing B.A.'s personal identifying
information, B.A.'s juvenile court records, and any
witness testimony addressing private facts contained within
the protected documents . Accordingly, 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.
C.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL
As set
forth in Section 12.3, below, this Protective Order does not
entitle the parties to file confidential information under
seal; Local Civil 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.
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. See Kamakana v.
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th
Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d
1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony
Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999)
(even stipulated protective orders require good cause
showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling
reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal
justification, must be made with respect to Protected
Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The
parties' mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery
Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not-without the submission of
competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the
material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as
confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable-constitute
good cause.
Further,
if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion
or trial, then compelling reasons, not only 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.
2.
DEFINITIONS
2.1
Action: Karla Garcia Aranda et al. v. County of
Los Angeles et al., 19-cv-01770-RGK (RAO)
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 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 Record 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 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and
includes 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
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
subcontractors.
2.14
Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery
Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.”
2.15
Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or
Discovery ...