Bilal Muhammad v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 22, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-09846
StatusUnknown

This text of Bilal Muhammad v. City of Los Angeles (Bilal Muhammad 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
Bilal Muhammad v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 Kevin E. Gilbert, Esq. (SBN: 209236) kgilbert@ohhlegal.com 2 Carolyn M. Aguilar, Esq. (SBN: 289550) 3 caguilar@ohhlegal.com ORBACH HUFF & HENDERSON LLP 4 6200 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 225 5 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Telephone: (510) 999-7908/Facsimile: (510) 999-7918 6

7 HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney (SBN: 106866) DENISE C. MILLS, Chief Deputy City Attorney (SBN: 191992) 8 SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN: 184980) 9 CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney (SBN: 115453) REBECCA E. HUNTER, Deputy City Attorney (SBN: 271420) 10 rebecca.hunter@lacity.org 11 200 N. Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012 12 Telephone: (213) 978-6900/Facsimile: (213) 978-8785 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17

18 BILAL MUHAMMAD, individually and Case No. 23-cv-09846-JFW-PD 19 as class representative, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 20 Plaintiff, ORDER 21 v. 22 23 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1 through 10, 24

25 Defendant.

26 27 28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 3 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 4 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 5 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 6 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 7 confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 8 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 10 principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angeles 13 Police Department. Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant the City 14 of Los Angeles (“City”) contends are confidential, such as personnel files of the police 15 officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video 16 recordings, audio recordings, photographs, Force Investigation Division materials and 17 information and other administrative materials and information currently in the 18 possession of the City and which the City believes need special protection from public 19 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff is 20 also seeking official information contained in the personnel files of the police officers 21 involved in the subject incident, which the City contends are strictly confidential and 22 which the City believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for 23 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 24 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by 25 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California 26 Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 27 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City contends that it has not publicly 28 released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order or 1 pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information are of the type that has 2 been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles Police Department 3 (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the 4 officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 5 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of 6 nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and 7 undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals 8 and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, 9 harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced 10 in the materials and information. 11 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 12 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 13 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to receive a fair 14 trial. 15 Plaintiff does not concur in the foregoing representations or the applicability of the 16 foregoing authorities but agrees that a protective order is necessary to facilitate discovery 17 in this case. 18 Defendant may seek information such as Plaintiff’s medical records that Plaintiff 19 believes are highly sensitive, confidential, and are legally protected from disclosure. See 20 Wooden v. Comprehensive Health Mgmt., No. 20-00053 LEK-WRP, 2021 U.S. Dist. 21 LEXIS 101889, at *3 (D. Haw. May 28, 2021) (“[M]edical records are confidential, as 22 recognized under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.”); 23 Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-CV-04375-LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90913, at *5 (N.D. 24 Cal. May 22, 2020) (same). Plaintiff contends that the undue disclosure of such 25 information creates a specific risk of embarrassment, emotional harm, reputational harm, 26 and professional harm. 27 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 28 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 1 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 2 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 3 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 4 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 5 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 6 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 7 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 8 public record of this case. 9 The Parties agree that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 10 the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of resolving any 11 disagreements. 12 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 13 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 14 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 15 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 16 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege 17 claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. 18 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 19 SEAL 20 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 21 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 22 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 23 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 24 material under seal. 25 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 26 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 27 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bilal Muhammad v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bilal-muhammad-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2024.