Alfonso Jesus Flores Resendiz v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 28, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-09754·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-09754-FMO-GJS Document 22 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:248

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ALFONSO JESUS FLORES CASE NO. CV21-09754 FMO (GJSx) RESENDIZ; [Assigned: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin, Crtrm. 6D] [Magistrate: Gail J. Standish, Roybal, Crtrm. 640] Plaintiffs,

vs. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED CITY OF LOS ANGELES, by and PROTECTIVE ORDER1 through the LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE FREDDIE ARROYO; DETECTIVE CHRISTIAN MRAKICH; DOES 1- 25, inclusive Defendants.

GOOD CAUSE appearing, it is therefore ORDERED: 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 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 may 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 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. Case 2:21-cv-09754-FMO-GJS Document 22 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:249

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 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. Plaintiff has filed suit in connection with being taken into the LAPD’s custody on May 8, 2020 in connection with a bank robbery investigation. In essence, Plaintiff alleges he was unlawfully detained/arrested. Defendants are the City of Los Angeles and LAPD Detectives Arroyo and Mrakich. The parties have exchanged written discovery which includes requests to produce documents pursuant to F.R.C.P. 34. In particular, the Plaintiff has requested documents from the underlying investigation which includes personal information for third-party bank employees. Plaintiff is also seeking the production of the related and unrelated Internal Affairs investigations, including those which do not relate to the Defendant Officers. The parties agree that such documents are properly the subject of a protective order. Following the issuance of a protective order, the City will agree to produce the related Internal Affairs investigation after it has been deemed closed (or fully adjudicated by the LAPD) and the City may agree to produce certain unrelated Internal Affairs investigation relating to the Defendant Officers, if any are deemed responsive to those particular requests. Federal courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 186, 189-90 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Courts balance the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted. Id.. Federal common law also recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975). Such information is otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court Case 2:21-cv-09754-FMO-GJS Document 22 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:250

rules, case decisions, or common law. 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. 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; Local Civil 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material Case 2:21-cv-09754-FMO-GJS Document 22 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:251

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

Alfonso Jesus Flores Resendiz v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Alfonso Jesus Flores Resendiz v. City of Los Angeles (Alfonso Jesus Flores Resendiz v. City of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related