Lydell Raysean Barnes v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 26

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Without Prejudice Joint Application for Entry of a Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 25) by Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen re Stipulation for Protective Order 25 . The joint request for approval of the stipulated protective order (ECF 25) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order that cures the deficiencies set forth in this order. (tsn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-03814-CBM-SSC
Title

Date: November 26, 2024

Lydell Raysean Barnes v. County of Los Angeles et al.

Present: The Honorable Stephanie S. Christensen, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Teagan Snyder
Deputy Clerk

n/a
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Without
Prejudice Joint Application for Entry of a Stipulated Protective
Order (ECF 25)
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff Lydell Raysean Barnes and
Defendants County of Los Angeles, Kristos Casteneda, and Kevin
Morales filed a joint application for entry of a stipulated protective
order. (ECF 25.) The Court has reviewed the proposed stipulated
protective order and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot
be granted.
The proposed stipulated protective order includes the following
statement:
In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and
the parties’ representations that discovery in this case will involve
the production of confidential records, and in order to expedite the
CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-03814-CBM-SSC
Title

Date: November 26, 2024

Lydell Raysean Barnes v. County of Los Angeles et al.
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 connection with this action, to address their handling
of such material at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends
of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in
this matter. The parties shall not designate any
information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief
that such information/documents have been maintained in a
confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a
compelling reason why it should not be part of the public record of
this case.

(ECF 25 at 2.) To the extent that the parties intended this to constitute
the required good-cause statement, such language is insufficient. See
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th
Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130
(9th Cir. 2003).
In any revised stipulated protective order submitted to the Court,
the parties must include a statement demonstrating good cause for
entry of a protective order pertaining to the documents or information
described in the order. The documents to be protected shall be
specifically described and identified. The parties shall articulate, for
each document or category of documents they seek to protect, the
specific prejudice or harm that will result if no protective order is
entered.
In sum, the joint request for approval of the stipulated protective
order (ECF 25) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:24-cv-03814-CBM-SSC
Title

Date: November 26, 2024

Lydell Raysean Barnes v. County of Los Angeles et al.

The parties may re-file a revised proposed stipulated protective order
that cures the deficiencies set forth in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

:
ts

Page 3 of 3