Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Allan Josue Benitez sued the County of San Bernardino and ten Doe defendants in the Central District of California (No. 5:26-cv-01731). The order does not describe his claims. It says only that the action involves records of detention and investigations performed by the County and its personnel, agents, employees, or contractors. The County contends that discovery will likely involve confidential or private information. It anticipates requests for law enforcement personnel records, employment records, photographs, videos, witness information, and Sheriff's Department materials implicating third-party privacy.
Counsel for both sides signed the stipulation on September 4, 2026. The recited grounds are the County's assertions, not court findings. Plaintiff expressly does not concede them, does not waive his right to object to confidentiality designations or to information withheld on statutory or privilege grounds, and agreed to the order only to encourage the exchange of documents. The parties also acknowledge that the order confers no blanket protection.
The Court’s Holding
On November 2, 2026, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym entered the stipulated order, stating "for good cause shown." It is a discovery-management order, not a ruling on the merits or on whether any particular document is actually confidential. Material qualifies as CONFIDENTIAL only if it merits protection under Rule 26(c), and it must bear a legend on each protected page. Documents are designated before production, deposition testimony is designated on the record before the deposition closes, and a timely corrected inadvertent failure to designate does not waive protection. Designating parties must act with restraint; mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited and may draw sanctions. A designation can be challenged through the Local Rule 37 meet-and-confer process and a joint stipulation. The designating party bears the burden of persuasion, and the material stays protected until the court rules.
A receiving party may use protected material only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this action. It may disclose the material only to listed groups, such as outside counsel, the court, court reporters, and certain witnesses, with experts and vendors signing an acknowledgment. The order does not authorize sealing. A party seeking to file protected material under seal must follow Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a specific court order, with good cause required for non-dispositive motions and compelling reasons for dispositive motions or trial. Use of protected material at trial is left to the trial judge, and the order's terms do not extend beyond the commencement of trial; exhibits become presumptively public absent compelling reasons shown in advance. The order also addresses subpoenas in other litigation, non-party material, and unauthorized disclosure, and any person may seek modification. After final disposition, parties must return or destroy protected material within 30 days and certify compliance, though counsel may keep archival copies. Violations may lead to contempt or monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a stipulated discovery-management measure and makes no finding that any specific record is confidential.
- A confidentiality designation does not guarantee sealing, because filing under seal requires a separate application under Civil Local Rule 79-5.
- Confidentiality protection ends at the start of trial, so trial exhibits face a presumption of public access unless the trial judge finds compelling reasons otherwise.
- The final-disposition clause sets a 30-day return-or-destroy period but also refers to a 60-day certification deadline and to a definition in Section 4 that does not appear there, so parties should confirm timing.
Why It Matters
This is a routine protective order and carries no precedential weight; it resolves no claim or defense. Its practical effect is to let discovery of sensitive law enforcement and personnel material proceed under agreed limits while preserving Plaintiff's objections. The County's good cause statement is a party contention that supports a stipulated order, not a finding about any actual record.
Still open are any dispute over a particular designation, any sealing application, confidentiality at trial, and the merits of the underlying case. The order itself notes it may be modified later.