Anastasia Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 9, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-06589
StatusUnknown

This text of Anastasia Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (Anastasia Martinez v. County 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
Anastasia Martinez v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLL LLARTNAC LLERRUH 0083 ETIUS ,TEERTS AOREUGIF .S 527 71009 AINROFILAC ,SELEGNA SOL 0002-624 )312( ENOHPELET Case 2:22-cv-06589-DSF-AFM Document 30 Filed 01/09/23 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:264 Thomas C. Hurrell, State Bar No. 119876 E-Mail: thurrell@hurrellcantrall.com Diane Martinez, State Bar No. 276499 E-Mail: dmartinez@hurrellcantrall.com Tasha T. Salveron, State Bar No. 336596 E-Mail: tsalveron@hurrellcantrall.com HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2000 Facsimile: (213) 426-2020

Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

ANASTASIA MARTINEZ, Case No. 2:22-cv-06589-DSF(AFMx)

Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER AND ORDER

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ALEX VILLANUEVA, CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC. and DOES Hon. Alexander F. MacKinnon, Crtm. 780 1 through 10,

Defendants.

1. 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 Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PLL LLARTNAC LLERRUH 0083 ETIUS ,TEERTS AOREUGIF .S 527 71009 AINROFILAC ,SELEGNA SOL 0002-624 )312( ENOHPELET Case 2:22-cv-06589-DSF-AFM Document 30 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:265 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal. 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. 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. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action involves the County of Los Angeles (“County”); former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) Sheriff Alex Villanueva (“Villanueva”); California Commerce Club, Inc. (“Hotel”); and unnamed LASD deputy(ies). Plaintiff seeks materials and information that the County maintains as confidential, such as the personnel files of the deputy(ies) involved in this incident; Internal Affairs materials and information; Investigative Reports; emergency responder Records of Service; records and logs, including recordings of Sheriff radio traffic; cellular phone records and logs; witness statements and reports; body worn recording device recordings; incident reports; and information and other administrative materials and information currently in possession of the County, and which the County believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff is also seeking official information contained in the personnel files of the deputy(ies) involved in the subject incident, which the County maintains as strictly confidential and which the County believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. The County asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law as evidenced, inter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PLL LLARTNAC LLERRUH 0083 ETIUS ,TEERTS AOREUGIF .S 527 71009 AINROFILAC ,SELEGNA SOL 0002-624 )312( ENOHPELET Case 2:22-cv-06589-DSF-AFM Document 30 Filed 01/09/23 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:266 alia, by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The County has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above, except under protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against LASD deputies, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the LASD deputies’ conduct were considered to be contrary to LASD policy. The County contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LASD deputies referenced in the materials and information. The County also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the County herein to receive a fair trial. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PLL LLARTNAC LLERRUH 0083 ETIUS ,TEERTS AOREUGIF .S 527 71009 AINROFILAC ,SELEGNA SOL 0002-624 )312( ENOHPELET Case 2:22-cv-06589-DSF-AFM Document 30 Filed 01/09/23 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:267 Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to the County’s contentions stated herein, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall resolve the parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and claimed privileges set forth above. However, Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of resolving any disagreements. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for protection as to any medical and psychotherapeutic records and LASD personnel and investigative records, because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of these sensitive interests, a Court Order should address these documents rather than a private agreement between the parties.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Anastasia Martinez v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anastasia-martinez-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.