Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 4, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-03585·Unknown

Opinion

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

The Court, finding good cause, Orders as follows: 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to a confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. Plaintiffs and the individual Defendants may produce certain documents in this case that contain personal medical, employment or financial information. Such information may implicate the privacy interests of the party and are properly protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its express purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights are to be protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). Defendants’ Statement of Good Cause: Defendants contend the Force Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department and the Internal Affairs and/or Complaint Investigators conduct internal administrative investigations of categorical officer-involved uses of force and internal complaints and external citizen complaints of police misconduct. In this above- captioned matter, the Force Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department conducted an internal administrative investigation into the events of this underlying incident. FID has also collected involved Officers’ Body Camera Footage of what took place during the underlying incident. Such information is obtained through the administrative investigation of this incident and are maintained as confidential peace officer personnel records and utilized for administrative issues for any involved Officers. Defendants contend that a Protective Order is appropriate for the following Good Cause reasons: Once completed, an FID report and/or Personnel Complaint Investigation is prepared. Such reports are reviewed by appropriate command officers in the Department and by the Board of Police Commissioners. This review has several purposes: (1) to determine whether the involved officers violated any Department policies or procedures; (2) to determine whether administrative discipline and/or retraining of the involved officers is necessary; (3) to ascertain if police policies and procedures in such areas as supervision, training, tactics, policies, etc.; should be modified. In sum, FID reports and/or Personnel Complaint Investigations are an essential aid to providing critical self-evaluation of Department officers and policies and to determine the most effective way to serve the citizens of Los Angeles. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of the medium or how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, and other applicable federal privileges. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, or tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any part to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocop

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

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

Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department (Adrian Aldaco v. Los Angeles Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)