Armen Mouradian v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 2, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-03880
StatusUnknown

This text of Armen Mouradian v. City of Los Angeles (Armen Mouradian 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
Armen Mouradian v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-03880-DMG-SHK Document 33 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:305

1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney –SBN 184980 2 CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney – SBN 115453 LISA W. LEE, Deputy City Attorney – SBN 186495 3 200 North Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East Los Angeles, CA 90012 4 Phone No.: (213) 978-7032 Fax No.: (213) 978-8785 5 Email: lisa.lee@lacity.org

6 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, MICHEL R. MOORE, EFRAIN JUAREZ- 7 MARCIAL, MYCHAL ORTIZ, RAUL CUEVAS, JAMES JEPPSON, and LUIS ROSAS 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 ARMEN MOURADIAN, Case No. CV 21-03880-DMG-(SHKx) 13 Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee; Ctrm 8C, 8th Fl. MAG. SHASHI H. KEWALRAMANI, CTRM 3 14 Plaintiff, OR 4, 3RD FL

v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 ORDER

16 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE LOS ANGELES POLICE 17 DEPARTMENT, CHIEF MICHEL MOORE individually and in his 18 official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, LAPD 19 OFFICER EFRAIN JUAREZ MARCIAL, LAPD OFFICER 20 MYCHAL ORTIZ, LAPD OFFICER RAUL CUEVAS, LAPD 21 OFFICER JAMES JEPPSON, LAPD SERGEANT LUIS ROSAS, 22 and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 23 Defendants.

24 25 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 26 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 27 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 28 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Case 2:21-cv-03880-DMG-SHK Document 33 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:306

1 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 2 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 3 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 4 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 5 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 6 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 7 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 8 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 9 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 10 the court to file material under seal. 11 12 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Police 14 Department (“LAPD”), Chief Michel Moore, Officer Efrain Juarez-Marcial, Officer 15 Mychal Ortiz, Officer Raul Cuevas, Officer James Jeppson, and Sergeant Luis Rosas 16 (“Defendants”). Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant City 17 maintains as confidential, such as Internal Affairs materials and information, internal 18 use of force investigation reports, video recordings, audio recordings, information and 19 other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City 20 and which Defendants believe need special protection from public disclosure and 21 from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiffs are also 22 seeking official information contained in the personnel files of the police officers 23 involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains as strictly confidential and 24 which Defendants believe need special protection from public disclosure and from 25 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 26 Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information 27 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 28 by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 2 Case 2:21-cv-03880-DMG-SHK Document 33 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:307

1 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 2 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 3 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 4 are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD 5 officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the 6 officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 7 Defendants contend that absent a protective order delineating the 8 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 9 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 10 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well 11 as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical 12 and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and 13 information. 14 Defendants also contend that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 15 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 16 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendants 17 herein to receive a fair trial. 18 Similarly, Plaintiff believes Defendants will seek, and Plaintiff will produce 19 discovery material in this action that contains medical records and other documents 20 and records protected by federal and state constitutional and statutory right to privacy 21 laws, including but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 22 Act (HIPPA), California Civil Code section 1798 et seq., and California Welfare and 23 Institutions Code section 5328. Plaintiff believes unfettered disclosure of these 24 materials would be inconsistent with the above described federal and state laws and 25 result in the unnecessary dissemination of Plaintiff’s personal and private physical 26 and mental health information. Plaintiff further believes such dissemination could 27 result in unnecessary and unwarranted embarrassment to Plaintiff and the infliction 28 of unnecessary and unwarranted emotional distress. 3 Case 2:21-cv-03880-DMG-SHK Document 33 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:308

1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 3 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 5 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 6 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 7 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 8 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 9 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 10 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 12 13 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 16 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 17 of information or items under this Order. 18 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 19 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 20 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 21 Cause Statement.

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

Related

Panaud v. Jones
1 Cal. 488 (California Supreme Court, 1851)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Armen Mouradian v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armen-mouradian-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2022.