Abo Issaian v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 19, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-08031
StatusUnknown

This text of Abo Issaian v. City of Los Angeles (Abo Issaian v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abo Issaian v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 MARIETTE AGHAJANIAN, CASE NO. CV23-08031-CBM-JPRx individually, and as Successor in Interest Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall, Ctrm 8D, 8th Fl. 12 to ABO ISSAIAN, deceased; ANNETTE Hon. Mag. Jean P. Rosenbluth, Ctrm 690, ISSAIAN, individually, and as Successor Roybal 13 in Interest to ABO ISSAIAN, deceased; EMILIE KOENING, individually, and as 14 Successor in Interest to ABO ISSAIAN, deceased, PROTECTIVE ORDER 15

16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18

19 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; and DOES 1 and through 10, 20 inclusive,

22 Defendants.

23 1. INTRODUCTION 24 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, 26 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 27 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 28 1 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 2 following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order 3 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 4 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 5 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 6 applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 7 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file Confidential Information 8 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 9 standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the Court to file 10 material under seal. 11 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and members of the 13 City’s Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). The nature of the incident that gives 14 rise to Plaintiffs’ suit and Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations, will result in discovery 15 production that includes: police reports and evidence; investigation reports and 16 evidence; peace officer personnel materials; information implicating the privacy rights 17 of third parties (i.e., bystander witnesses, emergency personnel information); and other 18 private and confidential materials for which require special protection from public 19 disclosure. 20 Specifically, Plaintiffs are seeking materials and information that Defendant 21 City (collectively, “Defendant”) maintains as confidential such as personnel files of 22 the police and/or sworn officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials 23 and information, video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, Force Investigation 24 Division materials and information and other administrative materials and information 25 currently in the possession of Defendant and which Defendant believes need special 26 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 27 this litigation. Plaintiffs may also seek official information contained in the personnel 28 files of the police and/or sworn officers involved in the subject incident, which 1 Defendant maintains as strictly confidential and which Defendant believes need 2 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 3 prosecuting this litigation. 4 Defendant asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information 5 sought by Plaintiffs is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 6 by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 7 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Defendant has not 8 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 9 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. The personnel materials and 10 information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against the 11 City’s respective employees, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 12 proceedings, where the employee conduct was considered to be contrary to policy. 13 Defendant contends that absent a protective order delineating the 14 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 15 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 16 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well 17 as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on 18 the part of the City’s employees referenced in the materials and information. 19 Defendant also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 20 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 21 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of Defendant herein to receive a 22 fair trial. 23 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 24 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 25 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 26 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 27 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 28 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 1 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 2 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 3 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 4 not be part of the public record of this case. 5 Plaintiffs agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to 6 preserve the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of 7 resolving any disagreements. The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good 8 Cause for, and hereby jointly request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order 9 regarding confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this 10 Stipulation. However, the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this 11 Stipulation shall not be construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned 12 legal statements or privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed 13 as part of any such Court Order. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: Mariette Aghajanian, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. USCD 16 Case No. 2:23-cv-08031-CBM-JPR 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation 18 of information or items under this Order. 19 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 20 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 21 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in the 22 Good Cause Statement. [Note: any request for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only 23 protective order that designates certain material as “Highly Confidential” 24 requires a separate, detailed showing of need.] 25 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 26 their support staff).

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

Related

Murdock v. Murdock
7 Cal. 511 (California Supreme Court, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abo Issaian v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abo-issaian-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2024.