Williams v. Rancho Cordova Police Dept. ( 2020 )

1 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189 2 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No. 287165 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230 3 Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 974-8500 4 Facsimile: (916) 974-8510 Email: longyear@longyearlaw.com 5 cahill@longyearlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 6 (erroneously sued as Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department) 7 PORTER SCOTT Carl L. Fessenden, CSB No. 161494 8 John R. Whitefleet, CSB No. 213301 350 University Avenue, Ste. 200 9 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 929-1481 10 Facsimile: (916) 927-3706 Email: cfessenden@porterscott.com 11 jwhitefleet@porterscott.com Attorneys for Defendant Rancho Cordova Police Department 12 13 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. Lawrance A. Bohm, CSB No. 208716 14 Daniel T. Newman, CSB No. 314937 Scott C. Zienty, CSB No. 324661 15 4600 Northgate Blvd. Ste. 210 Sacramento, CA 95834 16 Phone: (866) 920-1292 Facsimile: (916) 927-2046 17 Email: lbohm@bohmlaw.com dnewman@bohmlaw.com 18 szienty@bohmlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Carlos Williams 19 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION 22 CARLOS WILLIAMS, ) Case No.: 2:19-CV-02345-TLN-KJN ) 23 Plaintiff, ) ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED ) PROTECTIVE ORDER 24 v. ) ) 25 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) DEPARTMENT AND RANCHO CORDOVA ) 26 POLICE DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1 ) through 50, inclusive. ) 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 ) WAU 2.497 VV VESTS PLINUINGIN bMVVULIICIIt LO Vevey rPayet ¢vic 1 ORDER 2 The court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 17), which 3 || comports with the relevant authorities and the court’s applicable local rule. See L.R. 141.1(c);! 4 see also Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 5 2002) (“Generally, the public can gain access to litigation documents and information produced 6 during discovery unless the party opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order 7 is necessary.”) Therefore, the court GRANTS the request subject to the following clarification. This court’s Local Rules indicate that once this action is closed, “unless otherwise 9 ordered, the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective 10 order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f). Courts in the district generally do not agree to retain 11 jurisdiction after closure of the case. See, e.g., MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 12 B WL 495778 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 03, 2017). Based on this rationale, the court will not retain 4 jurisdiction over this protective order once the action is closed. 15 Dated: September 3, 2020 —-f’ \ 7 EENDALLJ.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1g |} 19 20 21 22 23 || ! The Court’s Local Rules instruct the parties, when requesting a protective order, to include in their 24 || submission: (1) A description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the 25 description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child); 26 (2) A showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and 27 (3) A showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties. 28 Local Rule 141.1(c).