Williams v. Rancho Cordova Police Dept.

1 LONGYEAR & LAVRA, LLP Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189 Nicole M. Cahill, CSB No. 287165 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 974-8500 Facsimile: (916) 974-8510 Email: [email protected] 5 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (erroneously sued as Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department) PORTER SCOTT Carl L. Fessenden, CSB No. 161494 John R. Whitefleet, CSB No. 213301 University Avenue, Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 929-1481 Facsimile: (916) 927-3706 Email: [email protected] 11 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Rancho Cordova Police Department BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. Lawrance A. Bohm, CSB No. 208716 Daniel T. Newman, CSB No. 314937 Scott C. Zienty, CSB No. 324661 4600 Northgate Blvd. Ste. 210 Sacramento, CA 95834 Phone: (866) 920-1292 Facsimile: (916) 927-2046 Email: [email protected] [email protected] 18 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Carlos Williams 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION CARLOS WILLIAMS, ) Case No.: 2:19-CV-02345-TLN-KJN ) 23 Plaintiff, ) ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED ) PROTECTIVE ORDER v. ) ) SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) DEPARTMENT AND RANCHO CORDOVA ) 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 || 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. 2002) (“Generally, the public can gain access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless the party opposing disclosure shows ‘good cause’ why a protective order 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 ordered, the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f). Courts in the district generally do not agree to retain jurisdiction after closure of the case. See, e.g., MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 B WL 495778 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 03, 2017). Based on this rationale, the court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the action is closed.

15 Dated: September 3, 2020 —-f’ \ 7 EENDALLJ.NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1g |} || ! The Court’s Local Rules instruct the parties, when requesting a protective order, to include in their || 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.

Local Rule 141.1(c).