Spivey v. Martin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBIE SPIVEY, No. 2:22-cv-00998 WBS AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, individually and in his official capacity as a Police 15 Officer for the City of Stockton Police Department, LEONEL GUZMAN, 16 individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Stockton 17 Police Department, PANCHO FREER, individually and in his official capacity as a 18 Police Officer for the City of Stockton Police Department, JARED DEKKERS, 19 individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Stockton 20 Police Department and DOES 1-50, inclusive, individually, jointly and 21 severally, 22 Defendants. 23 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 19), is 25 APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 27 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will 28 decide the matter related to that request to seal. 1 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential 2 pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the 3 court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed 4 by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only 5 be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. Local 6 Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, 7 Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 8 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons 9 to be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” Local Rule 141(b) 10 (emphasis added). 11 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that 12 “compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 13 related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” 14 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 15 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th 16 Cir. 2006). 17 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of 18 certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the 19 court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 20 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which 21 the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding inadvertently produced 22 materials under Fed. R. Evid. 502, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local 23 Rule 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex 24 parte basis or on shortened time. 25 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s 26 approval. If the parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation 27 and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 28 //// 1 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement 2 | of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 3 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 19) that is in conflict with anything 4 || in this order is hereby DISAPPROVED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || DATED: July 26, 2023 ~ 7 AMhon—Chnne ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28