Le Quyen Vu Ngo et al v. City of Santa Ana et al

Filing 56

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block (mt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 LE QUYEN VU NGO, individually and ) Case No.: SACV13-1660 DOC (RNBx) as successor in interest to the ESTATE ) OF BINH VAN NGUYEN; JOSEPH ) [Proposed] PROTECTIVE ORDER ) THIEN NGUYEN, a minor, by and ) through his Guardian Ad Litem, Le ) Quyen Vu Ngo, and as successor in interest to the ESTATE OF BINH VAN ) NGUYEN; PATRICK HUU NGUYEN, ) a minor, by and through his Guardian ) Ad Litem, Le Quyen Vu Ngo, and as ) successor in interest to the ESTATE OF ) BINH VAN NGUYEN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF SANTA ANA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) 22 23 THE PROTECTIVE ORDER shall govern the disclosure of the internal 24 affairs documents and personnel records ordered produced by the Court in 25 connection with the lawsuit entitled Le Quyen Vu Ngo, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, 26 et al., bearing case number SACV13-1660 DOC (RNBx). These documents, 27 hereinafter referred to as “the Protected Items”, will be clearly designated prior to 28 -1[Proposed] PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 the disclosure or production of such Protected Items and shall be subject to this 2 Protective Order as follows: 3 1. Each person receiving any of the Protected Items shall not disclose to 4 any person or entity, in any manner, including orally, any of the Protected Items or 5 any of the information contained therein, except when used for purposes of this 6 litigation pursuant to this protective order. 7 8 2. The Protected Items and all information contained therein, may only be disclosed to the following “qualified” persons: 9 (a) Counsel of record for the parties to this civil litigation; 10 (b) Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Santa Ana and its employees, 11 Defendant Sergeant Oliver Grant, and Defendant Officer Christopher Cecil; 12 13 (c) employed by counsel referred to in subparagraph (a); 14 15 (d) Investigators, expert witnesses and other persons legitimately involved in litigation-related activities for the counsel of record; and 16 17 Paralegal, stenographic, clerical and secretarial personnel regularly (e) Court personnel, including stenographic reporters engaged in such proceedings as are necessarily incidental to preparation for the trial of this action. 18 3. The Protected Items may be disclosed to the Court and court 19 personnel, in connection with this litigation. Portions of the Protected Items that a 20 party intends to use in support of or in opposition to a pre-trial filing with the 21 Court must be filed in accordance with the Central District of California Local 22 Rules relating to under seal filings, including Local Rule 79-5. Counsel intending 23 to use information from Protected Items must both (a) apply to submit unredacted 24 documents containing information from the Protected Items under seal and (b) file 25 public versions of the same document with the information from the Protected 26 Item redacted. 27 /// 28 /// -2[Proposed] PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 4. In the event this matter proceeds to trial, to the extent that the 2 Protected Items are offered into evidence, the Protected Items will become public, 3 unless sufficient cause is shown in advance of trial to proceed otherwise. 4 5. The court reporter, videographer, and audiographer, if any, who 5 record all or part of any deposition in this matter which includes the Protected 6 Items or descriptions thereof shall be subject to this Order and precluded from 7 providing any portions of the original deposition videotape, audiotape, or exhibits 8 which relate to the Protected Items or information to any persons other than 9 counsel of record, absent order of the court. 10 6. Those attending any deposition in this matter wherein the Protected 11 Items are disclosed, shall be bound by this Order and, therefore, shall not disclose 12 to any person or entity, in any manner, including orally, any statements relating to 13 information within the Protected Items made by such person during the course of 14 said depositions. 15 7. The Protected Items shall be used solely in connection with the 16 preparation and trial of the within this action Le Quyen Vu Ngo, et al. v. City of 17 Santa Ana, et al., bearing case number SACV13-1660 DOC (RNBx), or any 18 related appellate proceeding, and not for any other purpose, including, without 19 limitation, any other litigation or administrative proceedings or any investigation 20 related thereto. 21 8. This Order may not be modified unless by written consent of the 22 parties and approval of the Court. Any party may move for a modification of this 23 Order at any time. 24 25 26 9. This Order is made for the purpose of ensuring that the Protected Items and the information contained therein will remain confidential. 10. At the conclusion of this litigation, upon request of defense counsel, 27 plaintiffs’ counsel shall return the Protected Items to Steven J. Rothans, Esq., 28 Carpenter, Rothans & Dumont, 888 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1960, Los Angeles, -3[Proposed] PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 California 90017. Alternatively, the receiving parties and every other person 2 and/or entity who received originals or copies of the protected item may destroy all 3 such material and material derived therefrom within 30 calendar days after the 4 conclusion of this case. Additionally, within 30 calendar days after the conclusion 5 of this case, counsel for the receiving parties shall send a signed declaration stating 6 that such material has been destroyed pursuant to this Protective Order. 7 8 9 11. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing a party to disobey a lawful subpoena issued in another action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 DATED: January 09, 2015 ___________________________________ Honorable Robert N. Block United States District Court Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4[Proposed] PROTECTIVE ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?