Alfonso Jesus Flores Resendiz v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 28, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-09754
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

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

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ALFONSO JESUS FLORES CASE NO. CV21-09754 FMO (GJSx) RESENDIZ; [Assigned: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin, Crtrm. 6D] 11 [Magistrate: Gail J. Standish, Roybal, Crtrm. 640] Plaintiffs,

12 vs. 13 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED CITY OF LOS ANGELES, by and PROTECTIVE ORDER1 14 through the LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE 15 FREDDIE ARROYO; DETECTIVE CHRISTIAN MRAKICH; DOES 1- 16 25, inclusive 17 Defendants.

18 GOOD CAUSE appearing, it is therefore ORDERED: 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 22 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 23 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 24 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 28 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

1 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 2 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 3 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 4 legal principles. 5 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 Plaintiff has filed suit in connection with being taken into the LAPD’s custody 7 on May 8, 2020 in connection with a bank robbery investigation. In essence, Plaintiff 8 alleges he was unlawfully detained/arrested. Defendants are the City of Los Angeles 9 and LAPD Detectives Arroyo and Mrakich. 10 The parties have exchanged written discovery which includes requests to 11 produce documents pursuant to F.R.C.P. 34. In particular, the Plaintiff has requested 12 documents from the underlying investigation which includes personal information for 13 third-party bank employees. Plaintiff is also seeking the production of the related and 14 unrelated Internal Affairs investigations, including those which do not relate to the 15 Defendant Officers. The parties agree that such documents are properly the subject of 16 a protective order. Following the issuance of a protective order, the City will agree to 17 produce the related Internal Affairs investigation after it has been deemed closed (or 18 fully adjudicated by the LAPD) and the City may agree to produce certain unrelated 19 Internal Affairs investigation relating to the Defendant Officers, if any are deemed 20 responsive to those particular requests. 21 Federal courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy 22 that can be raised in response to discovery requests. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 23 234 F.R.D. 186, 189-90 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Courts balance the need for the 24 information sought against the privacy right asserted. Id.. Federal common law also 25 recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. Kerr v. United States District 26 Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975). Such 27 information is otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 28 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

1 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 2 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 3 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 4 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 5 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 6 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 7 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 8 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 9 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 10 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 11 record of this case. 12 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 13 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 14 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 15 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 16 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 17 material under seal. 18 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 19 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 20 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 21 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 22 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 23 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 24 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 25 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 26 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 27 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 28 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

1 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 2 protectable—constitute good cause. 3 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 4 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 5 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 6 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 7 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 8 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 9 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 10 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 11 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 12 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 13 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 14 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 15 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 16 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 17 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19 2.1 Action: Alfonso Jesus Flores Resendiz v. City of Los Angeles, et al. 20 CV21-09754-FMO-GJSx.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alfonso Jesus Flores Resendiz v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfonso-jesus-flores-resendiz-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2022.