Santos v. Wiest ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIANA SANTOS and EDWARD No. 2:22-cv-01856 DAD AC CHAVEZ, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 14 DRAKE WIEST, in his individual capacity 15 and in his official capacity as a police officer for CITY OF FAIRFIELD; and 16 DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually and in their official capacities as peace officers for 17 CITY OF FAIRFIELD, jointly and severally, 18 Defendants. 19 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 8), is 21 APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 23 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will 24 decide the matter related to that request to seal. 25 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential 26 pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the 27 court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed 28 1 by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only 2 be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. Local 3 Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, 4 Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 5 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons 6 to be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” Local Rule 141(b) 7 (emphasis added). 8 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that 9 “compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 10 related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” 11 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 12 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th 13 Cir. 2006). 14 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of 15 certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the 16 court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 17 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which 18 the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding inadvertently produced 19 materials under Fed. R. Evid. 502, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local 20 Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex 21 parte basis or on shortened time. 22 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s 23 approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation 24 and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 25 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement 26 of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 27 //// 28 //// 1 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 8) that is in conflict with anything 2 || 1n this order is hereby DISAPPROVED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. . ~ 4 | DATED: February 27, 2023 7“. tere — A /; 5 ALLISON CLAIRE ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28