M.P. v. County of San Joaquin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 M.P., a minor, by and through his guardian No. 2:23-cv-00245 KJM AC ad litem, Roy McCollum, individually and 12 as successor in interest to Decedent BRITTANY CAITLIN McCULLUM; and 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER ROY McCOLLUM, individually, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, a public 17 entity; San Joaquin County Sheriff PATRICK WITHROW; San Joaquin 18 County Employees PAULA ALEYDA ARAGONDE GONZALEZ, LVN; MARY 19 M.CENDANA, RN; and County of San Joaquin DOES 1-50, jointly and severally., 20 Defendants. 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 24), is 22 APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 24 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will 25 decide the matter related to that request to seal. 26 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential 27 pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the 28 1 court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed 2 by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only 3 be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. Local 4 Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, 5 Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 6 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons 7 to be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” Local Rule 141(b) 8 (emphasis added). 9 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that 10 “compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 11 related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” 12 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 13 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th 14 Cir. 2006). 15 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of 16 certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the 17 court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 18 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which 19 the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding inadvertently produced 20 materials under Fed. R. Evid. 502, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local 21 Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex 22 parte basis or on shortened time. 23 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s 24 approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation 25 and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 26 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement 27 of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 28 //// 1 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 24) that is in conflict with anything 2 || 1n this order is hereby DISAPPROVED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | DATED: June 22, 2023 ~ 5 AMttun—Clone_ ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28