A. M., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, AHTZIRI NAVA v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND DOES 1 - 50, INCLUSIVE

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 17, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-10090·Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 A. M., a minor, by and through her CASE NO. CV23-10090-MCS-PVCx guardian ad litem, AHTZIRI NAVA;

12 AHTZIRI NAVA, an individual, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER Plaintiff(s), 14 v. 15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS 16 ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND DOES 1 - 50, INCLUSIVE, 17 Defendant(s). 18 19 1. INTRODUCTION 20 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 23 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 24 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 25 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 26 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 27 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 1 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 2 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 3 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 4 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 5 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) and members of the 7 City’s Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). The nature of the incident gives rise 8 to Plaintiffs’ suit and Plaintiff’s claims and allegations, will result in discovery 9 production that includes: police reports and evidence investigation reports and evidence; 10 peace officer personnel materials, information implicating privacy rights of third party 11 individuals (i.e. bystander witnesses, emergency personnel information); and other 12 private and confidential materials for which require special protection from public 13 disclosure. 14 Specifically, Plaintiffs are seeking material and information that Defendant City 15 (collectively, “Defendant”) maintains as confidential such as personnel files of the 16 police and/or sworn officers involved in the incident, Internal Affairs materials and 17 information, video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, Force Investigation 18 Division materials and information and other administrative materials and information 19 currently in the possession of Defendant and which Defendant believes need special 20 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 21 this litigation. Plaintiffs may also seek official information contained in the personnel 22 files of the police and/or sworn officers involved in the subject incident, which 23 Defendant maintains as strictly confidential and which Defendant believes need 24 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 25 prosecuting this litigation. 26 Defendant asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information 27 sought by Plaintiffs is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 1 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Defendant has not 2 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 3 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. The personnel materials and 4 information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against the 5 City’s respective employees, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 6 proceedings, where the employee conduct was considered to be contrary to policy. 7 Defendant contends that absent a protective order delineating the 8 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 9 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 10 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as 11 the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on 12 the part of the City’s employees referenced in the materials and information. 13 Defendant also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 14 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 15 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of Defendant herein to receive a 16 fair trial. 17 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 18 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 19 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 20 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 21 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 22 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is 23 the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 24 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 25 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 26 should not be part of the public record of this case. 27 Plaintiffs agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 1 disagreements. The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and 2 hereby jointly request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding 3 confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. 4 However, the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall 5 not be construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or 6 privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such 7 Court Order. 8 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: A. M., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, AHTZIRI 11 NAVA, et al. v City of Los Angeles, et al. USCD Case No. 2:23-cv-10090-MCS-PVx 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 13 information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 15 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 17 Statement. [Note: any request for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only protective order that 18 designates certain material as “Highly Confidential” will require a separate and detailed 19 showing of need.] 20 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 21 support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 23 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 24 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 26 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 27 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 3 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 6 counsel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A. M., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, AHTZIRI NAVA v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND DOES 1 - 50, INCLUSIVE, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

A. M., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, AHTZIRI NAVA v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND DOES 1 - 50, INCLUSIVE (A. M., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, AHTZIRI NAVA v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND DOES 1 - 50, INCLUSIVE) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Panaud v. Jones
1 Cal. 488 (California Supreme Court, 1851)