Jeffrey Goodin v. City of Glendora et al

Filing 37

STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams re Stipulation for Protective Order 36 . (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION) (gr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JEFFREY GOODIN,

12

Plaintiff,

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED
FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE
ORDER

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Case No.: 2:17-cv-03567-FMO-PLA

v.
CITY OF GLENDORA;
DETECTIVE CRAWFORD;
DETECTIVE ZIINO;
LIEUTENANT DEMOND;
SERGEANT AMARO; OFFICER
STEIN; OFFICER HOWELL;
SERGEANT BARRETT;
SERGEANT GOLD; and, DOES 1
through 25, inclusive,

Trial Date:

7/24/2018

Defendants.

23
24
25
26

1.

A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

27

Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential,

28

proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

1

and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.

2

Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the

3

following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does

4

not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the

5

protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited

6

information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable

7

legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below,

8

that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential

9

information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be

10

followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from

11

the court to file material under seal.
B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT

12
13

1.1

Defendants' Contentions.

14

Defendants contend that there is good cause and a particularized need for a

15

protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and privacy in peace officer

16

personnel file records and associated investigative or confidential records for the

17

following reasons. Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to defendants'

18

contentions in this section below.

19

First, defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of

20

privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that

21

is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective

22

procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027,

23

1033-1034 (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665,

24

*2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to

25

privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law

26

which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying

27

[federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D.

28

603, 613 n. 4, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (peace officers have constitutionally-based
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

2

1

“privacy rights [that] are not inconsequential” in their police personnel records); cf.

2

Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. Under California

3

law, peace officer personnel file information is presumed confidential and such may

4

not be discovered or disclosed absent a Pitchess Order. See, e.g., Warrick v. Superior

5

Ct., 35 Cal.4th 1011 (2005); City of Hemet v. Superior Ct. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th

6

1411. Defendants further contend that uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file

7

information and/or certain investigative information can threaten the safety of non-

8

party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates; accordingly, such information

9

is also subject to various privileges. See, e.g., Cal. Gov. Code § 6254(f) (law

10

enforcement investigative privilege); Cal. Evid. Code §§ 952-954 (attorney-client

11

privilege); cf. Cal. R. Ct. 1.20(b) (mandatory privacy protections in public court

12

records); U.S. Const., amend V, XIV.

13

Second, defendants contend that municipalities and law enforcement agencies

14

have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information

15

privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege

16

(and/or attorney work-product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace

17

officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain

18

critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or

19

communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis –

20

potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal

21

Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or

22

reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of

23

obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa

24

Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir.

25

1997); Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613, 613 n. 4; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654,

26

668-671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Tuite v. Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 176-177 (D. D.C. 1998);

27

Hamstreet v. Duncan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89702 (D. Or. 2007); Admiral Ins. Co.

28

v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

3

1

further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the

2

public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law and that

3

uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy;

4

impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and

5

related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests; and a chilling of open and

6

honest discussion regarding and/or investigation into alleged misconduct that can

7

erode a public entity’s ability to identify and/or implement any remedial measures

8

that may be required.

9

Third, defendants contend that, since peace officers do not have the same

10

rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to

11

the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’

12

compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822,

13

828-830 (1985); cf. U.S. Const., amend V.

14

Fourth, the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued an order sealing the

15

probable cause portion of the search warrant declaration pursuant to Evidence Code

16

Sections 1040-1042 and People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 CA. 4th 948, and that the

17

defendants have a limited privilege to withhold the identity of confidential informants

18

in civil as well as criminal cases. (“Hobbs Attachment”). See In re Perez (9th Cir.

19

2014) 749 F3d 849, 855-856; Guzman v. City of Chicago (ND IL 2007) 242 FRD

20

443, 446-447; see Roviaro v. United States (1957) 353 US 53, 60, 77 S.Ct. 623, 627—

21

preserving anonymity encourages citizens to report illegal activity.

22

1.2.

Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to defendants'

23

contention herein above, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall

24

resolve the parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and

25

claimed privileges set forth above.

26
27

1.3.

The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need

for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records, because of the privacy

28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

4

1

interests at stake therein. Because of these sensitive interests, a Court Order should

2

address these documents rather than a private agreement between the parties.

3

1.4.

The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby

4

jointly request that the Honorable Court issue/enter, a Protective Order re confidential

5

documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the

6

entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be

7

construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or

8

privilege claims in this section, nor shall this section be construed as part of any such

9

Court Order.

10

Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt

11

resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately

12

protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the

13

parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and

14

in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve

15

the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It

16

is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for

17

tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it

18

has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause

19

why it should not be part of the public record of this case.

20

1.5.

On December 13, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting in part

21

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 35), ordering in relevant part that no later than

22

December 27, 2017, subject to the Protective Order, which the parties may stipulate to

23

amend to include a strict “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” provision, defendant shall provide

24

plaintiff’s counsel with access to a redacted version of the Hobbs Attachment, and that

25

Defendant may redact the following: the confidential informant’s name, and directly

26

identifying information, such as address, social security number, physical description,

27

and the like. This First Amended Stipulated Protective Order is intended to address

28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

5

1

the foregoing December 13, 2017 Court Order to provide a provision for “Attorneys’

2

Eyes Only” with respect to the Hobbs Attachment.

3

2.

DEFINITIONS

4

2.1

Action: this pending federal law suit.

5

2.2

"ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" Material: ''ATTORNEYS' EYES

6

ONLY" material means information, documents, and things the designating party

7

believes in good faith is not generally known to others and which the designating

8

party (i) would not normally reveal to third parties except in confidence or has

9

undertaken with others to maintain in confidence or (ii) believes in good faith is

10

sensitive and protected by a right to privacy under federal or state law or any other

11

applicable privilege or right related to confidentiality or privacy. The designation is

12

reserved for information that constitutes sensitive information that the producing

13

party maintains as confidential in the normal course of its operations and in order to

14

protect the identity and safety of confidential informants. "ATTORNEYS' EYES

15

ONLY" material shall include all information, documents, and things referring or

16

relating to the foregoing, including but not limited to copies, summaries, and

17

abstracts of the foregoing, and shall be designated as such in the manner described

18

below. The following information shall be deemed "ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY"

19

material for the purposes of this order; however, the fact that such information is

20

listed in this order shall not be construed as a waiver of a party's objections to the

21

production or disclosure of said information or as an agreement to produce such

22

information absent a further order of this Court:

23

a.

24

contained therein.

25

2.3

26
27
28

The Hobbs Attachment to the search warrant and the information
Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the

designation of information or items under this Order.
2.4

“CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of

how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

6

1

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good

2

Cause Statement.

3

2.5

4

their support staff).

5

2.6

Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as
Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or

6

items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as

7

“CONFIDENTIAL” "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY".

8
9

2.7

Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of

the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including,

10

among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or

11

generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

12

2.8

Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter

13

pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an

14

expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

15

2.9

House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

16

House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside

17

counsel.

18
19
20

2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or
other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.
2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party

21

to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have

22

appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has

23

appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff.

24

2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors,

25

employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their

26

support staffs).

27
28

2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or
Discovery Material in this Action.
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

7

1

2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support

2

services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or

3

demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium)

4

and their employees and subcontractors.

5
6
7
8
9
10

2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is
designated as “CONFIDENTIAL”, or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material
from a Producing Party.
3.

SCOPE

The protections conferred by this First Amended Stipulation and Order cover

11

not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or

12

extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations

13

of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by

14

Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

15
16

Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the
trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial.

17

4.

18

Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the court-filed information to be

19

introduced that was previously designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to

20

this protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all

21

members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by

22

specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of

23

the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th

24

Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced

25

in discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents are

26

part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this protective order do not extend

27

beyond the commencement of the trial.

28

5.

DURATION

DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

8

1

5.1

Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.

2

Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this

3

Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies

4

under the appropriate standards.

5

The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of

6

material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that

7

other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which

8

protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.

9

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are

10

shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g.,

11

to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose unnecessary

12

expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Designating Party to sanctions.

13

If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it

14

designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must

15

promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the inapplicable designation.

16

5.2

Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in

17

this Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise

18

stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection

19

under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or

20

produced.

21

Designation in conformity with this Order requires:

22

(a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents,

23

but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the

24

Producing Party affix, at a minimum, the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” (hereinafter

25

“CONFIDENTIAL legend”), or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (hereinafter

26

“ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY legend”) to each page that contains protected

27

material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for

28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

9

1

protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s)

2

(e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).
A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents available for inspection

3
4

need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated

5

which documents it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before

6

the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed

7

“CONFIDENTIAL, ” or for “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. After the inspecting

8

Party has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party

9

must determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this

10

Order. Then, before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must

11

affix the “CONFIDENTIAL legend” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY legend” to

12

each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material

13

on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the

14

protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).
(b) for testimony given in depositions that the Designating Party identify the

15
16

Disclosure or Discovery Material on the record, before the close of the deposition.

17

(c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for

18

any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the

19

exterior of the container or containers in which the information is stored the legend

20

“CONFIDENTIAL”, or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. If only a portion or portions

21

of the information warrants protection, the Producing Party, to the extent practicable,

22

shall identify the protected portion(s).
5.3

23

Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent

24

failure to designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the

25

Designating Party’s right to secure protection under this Order for such material.

26

Upon timely correction of a designation, the Receiving Party must make reasonable

27

efforts to assure that the material is treated in accordance with the provisions of this

28

Order.
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

10

1
2
3

6.

CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY OR ATTORNEYS' EYES

ONLY DESIGNATIONS
6.1

Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a

4

designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court’s

5

Scheduling Order.

6

6.2

Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute

7

resolution process under Local Rule 37.1, et seq. Any discovery motion must strictly

8

comply with the procedures set forth in Local Rules 37-1, 37-2, and 37-3.

9

6.3

Burden. The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding

10

shall be on the Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an

11

improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on

12

other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating

13

Party has waived or withdrawn the confidentiality designation, all parties shall

14

continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled

15

under the Producing Party’s designation until the Court rules on the challenge.

16

7.

ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

17

7.1

Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is

18

disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this

19

Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this Action. Such

20

Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the

21

conditions described in this Order. When the Action has been terminated, a Receiving

22

Party must comply with the provisions of section 13 below (FINAL DISPOSITION).

23

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location

24

and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized

25

under this Order.

26
27

7.2

Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY”

Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing

28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

11

1

by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item

2

designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” only to:

3

(a)

the Receiving Party’s Counsel of Record in this Action, as well as

4

employees of said Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose

5

the information for this Action;

6
7
8
9
10

(b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the
Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action;
(c) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom
disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the
“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);

11

(d) the Court and its personnel;

12

(e) court reporters and their staff;

13

(f) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and Professional

14

Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have

15

signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A);

16
17
18

(g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a
custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information;
(h) during their depositions, witnesses, and attorneys for witnesses, in the

19

Action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary provided: (1) the deposing party

20

requests that the witness sign the form attached as Exhibit A hereto; and (2) they will

21

not be permitted to keep any confidential information unless they sign the

22

“Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed

23

by the Designating Party or ordered by the Court. Pages of transcribed deposition

24

testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected Material may be separately

25

bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted

26

under this Stipulated Protective Order; and (i) any mediator or settlement officer, and

27

their supporting personnel, mutually agreed upon by any of the parties engaged in

28

settlement discussions.
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

12

1
2
3
4
5

(i) "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” information shall not be disclosed to
plaintiff.
8.

PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED

PRODUCED IN OTHER LITIGATION
If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation

6

that compels disclosure of any information or items designated in this Action as

7

“CONFIDENTIAL,” or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” that Party must:

8
9
10

(a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall
include a copy of the subpoena or court order;
(b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to

11

issue in the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or

12

order is subject to this Protective Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this

13

Stipulated Protective Order; and

14
15
16

(c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued
by the Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected.
If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with

17

the subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in this

18

action as “CONFIDENTIAL” or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” before a

19

determination by the court from which the subpoena or order issued, unless the Party

20

has obtained the Designating Party’s permission. The Designating Party shall bear the

21

burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its confidential material and

22

nothing in these provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a

23

Receiving Party in this Action to

24

disobey a lawful directive from another court.

25
26
27
28

9.

A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE

PRODUCED IN THIS LITIGATION
(a) The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a NonParty in this Action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or "ATTORNEYS' EYES
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

13

1

ONLY”. Such information produced by Non-Parties in connection with this litigation

2

is protected by the remedies and relief provided by this Order.

3
4
5

Nothing in these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party
from seeking additional protections.
(b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to

6

produce a Non- Party’s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is

7

subject to an agreement with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s

8

confidential information, then the Party shall:
(1) promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party

9
10

that some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement

11

with a Non-Party;
(2) promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated

12
13

Protective Order in this Action, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably

14

specific description of the information requested; and
(3) make the information requested available for inspection by the

15
16

Non-Party, if requested.
(c) If the Non-Party fails to seek a protective order from this Court

17
18

within 14 days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving

19

Party may produce the Non- Party’s confidential information responsive to the

20

discovery request. If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving

21

Party shall not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to

22

the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the Court.

23

Absent a court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense

24

of seeking protection in this Court of its Protected Material.

25

10.

UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

26

If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed

27

Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this

28

Stipulated Protective Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

14

1

writing the Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts

2

to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (c) inform the person or

3

persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this

4

Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment

5

and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

6
7

11.

INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR

OTHERWISE PROTECTED MATERIAL

8

When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain

9

inadvertently produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection,

10

the obligations of the Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil

11

Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure

12

may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior

13

privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e), insofar as the

14

parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure of a communication or

15

information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, the

16

parties may incorporate their agreement in the stipulated protective order submitted to

17

the Court.

18

12.

19

12.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any

20
21

MISCELLANEOUS

person to seek its modification by the Court in the future.
12.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this

22

Protective Order, no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to

23

disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in this

24

Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any

25

ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by this Protective Order.

26

12.3 Filing Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any

27

Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may

28

only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

15

1

specific Protected Material at issue; good cause must be shown in the request to file

2

under seal. If a Party’s request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the

3

Court, then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless

4

otherwise instructed by the Court.

5

13.

FINAL DISPOSITION

6

After the final disposition of this Action, within 60 days of a written request

7

by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to

8

the Producing Party or destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, “all

9

Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any

10

other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the

11

Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written

12

certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the

13

Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category,

14

where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2)

15

affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations,

16

summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material.

17

Notwithstanding this provision, counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all

18

pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda,

19

correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product,

20

and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected

21

Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material

22

remain subject to this Protective Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION).

23

14.

Any violation of this Order may be punished by any and all appropriate

24

measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary

25

sanctions.

26
27

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
Respectfully submitted,

28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

16

1

Date: December 26, 2017

2
3

THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN S. CONLOGUE
By: /s/Kevin S. Conlogue
Kevin S. Conlogue, Attorney for Plaintiff, JEFFREY
GOODIN

4
5

Date: December 26, 2017

6
7
8
9
10

Law Office of D. Wayne Leech a Professional
Corporation
By: /s/ D. Wayne Leech
D. Wayne Leech, Attorney for Defendants CITY OF
GLENDORA, DETECTIVE CRAWFORD,
DETECTIVE ZIINO, LIEUTENANT DEMOND,
OFFICER STEIN, OFFICER HOWELL,
SERGEANT BARRETT, and SERGEANT GOLD

11
12
13
14

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 27, 2017

________________________
Paul L. Abrams, United States District/Magistrate
Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

17

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the

3

Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4

Electronic Service List for this Case.

5

Law Office of D. Wayne Leech, a Professional
Corporation

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DATED: December 26, 2017

/s/ D. Wayne Leech
D. WAYNE LEECH, Attorneys for Defendants,
CITY OF GLENDORA, DETECTIVE
CRAWFORD, DETECTIVE ZIINO,
LIEUTENANT DEMOND, OFFICER STEIN,
OFFICER HOWELL, SERGEANT BARRETT,
SERGEANT GOLD

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FIRST AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

18