Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 4, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-03585
StatusUnknown

This text of Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department (Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department) 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
Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 Christian Contreras, Esq. (SBN 330269) Denisse O. Gastélum, Esq. (SBN cc@contreras-law.com 282771) 2 LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com CONTRERAS GASTÉLUM LAW 3 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 360 E. 2nd St., 8th Fl. 3767 Worsham Ave. 4 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Long Beach, California 90808 Tel: (323) 435-8000; Fax: (323) 597-0101 Tel: (213) 340-6112 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6 ADRIAN ALDACO

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ADRIAN ALDACO, an individual, ) CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-03585-HDV-AGR 12 ) ) DISCOVERY MATTER 13 Plaintiff, ) Referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia ) 14 v. ) Rosenberg ) 15 ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE LOS ANGELES POLICE ) ORDER 16 DEPARTMENT, a public entity, CITY ) OF LOS ANGELES, a municipality; ) 17 RUDY CHAVEZ, an individual; ) NOTE CHANGES MADE BY COURT GREGORY PAPIK, an individual; and ) 18 DOES 1-10, inclusive, individuals, ) ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 ) ) 21 )

22 23

28 1 ORDER ON STIPULATION 2 The Court, finding good cause, Orders as follows: 3 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 5 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 6 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 7 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. 8 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 9 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 10 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 11 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 12 items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 13 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 14 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 15 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 16 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 17 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this 19 case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such 20 information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected 21 through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 22 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the 23 protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue 24 burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to 25 other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad 26 purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 27 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully 28 crafted protective order.”). 1 Defendants’ Statement of Good Cause: 2 Defendants contend the Force Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police 3 Department and the Internal Affairs and/or Complaint Investigators conduct internal 4 administrative investigations of categorical officer-involved uses of force and internal 5 complaints and external citizen complaints of police misconduct. In this above- 6 captioned matter, the Force Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police 7 Department conducted an internal administrative investigation into the events of this 8 underlying incident. FID has also collected involved Officers’ Body Camera Footage 9 of what took place during the underlying incident. Such information is obtained 10 through the administrative investigation of this incident and are maintained as 11 confidential peace officer personnel records and utilized for administrative issues for 12 any involved Officers. Defendants contend that a Protective Order is appropriate for 13 the following Good Cause reasons: 14 Once completed, an FID report and/or Personnel Complaint Investigation is 15 prepared. Such reports are reviewed by appropriate command officers in the 16 Department and by the Board of Police Commissioners. This review has several 17 purposes: (1) to determine whether the involved officers violated any Department 18 policies or procedures; (2) to determine whether administrative discipline and/or 19 retraining of the involved officers is necessary; (3) to ascertain if police policies and 20 procedures in such areas as supervision, training, tactics, policies, etc.; should be 21 modified. In sum, FID reports and/or Personnel Complaint Investigations are an 22 essential aid to providing critical self-evaluation of Department officers and policies 23 and to determine the most effective way to serve the citizens of Los Angeles. 24 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 25 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 26 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 27 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 28 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 1 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 2 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 3 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 4 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 5 not be part of the public record of this case. 6 2. DEFINITIONS 7 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 8 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 9 of information or items under this Order. 10 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of the 11 medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 12 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good 13 Cause Statement, and other applicable federal privileges. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 15 support staff). 16 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 17 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 18 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 20 the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 21 testimony, transcripts, or tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures 22 or responses to discovery in this matter. 23 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 25 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 26 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. 27 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 28 counsel. 1 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adrian-aldaco-v-los-angeles-police-department-cacd-2024.