Brandon Henderson v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 2, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-10938
StatusUnknown

This text of Brandon Henderson v. City of Los Angeles (Brandon Henderson 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
Brandon Henderson v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 BRANDON HENDERSON, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-10938-MEMF-Ex Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong– Ctrm. 8B 12 Hon. Charles F. Eick– Ctrm. 750

13 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE 14 v. ORDER

15 16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al,

17 Defendants.

18 19

20 21 1. INTRODUCTION 22 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 24 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 25 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 26 Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 27 Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 1 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 2 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 3 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties 4 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle 5 them to file Confidential Information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 6 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party 7 seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 8 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ 10 representations that discovery in this case may involve the production of confidential 11 records (including but not limited to employment/personnel records1 and information2 12 of individually named Defendants and/or other employees of the City). In addition, 13 Defendants anticipate conducting discovery as to any potential criminal history of 14 Plaintiff, which may include disclosure of sealed, confidential or otherwise sensitive 15 information. Further, information sought by the parties may include confidential or 16 privileged materials relating to law enforcement operations. In order to expedite the 17 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality 18 of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 19 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 20 material in connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at the 21 end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 22 information is justified in this matter. The parties shall not designate any 23 information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief that such 24 25 1 “Government personnel files are considered official information.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana (9th Cir.1990) 936 F.2d 1027, 1033; Miller v. Pancucci(C.D. Cal. 1992) 141 F.R.D. 292, 299. 26 2 See Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., 2015 WL 3545921, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 27 June 5, 2015), in which the court granted a request to seal specified documents to the extent they reflected employee numbers/identification. 1 information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 2 that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be part of the public 3 record of this case. 4 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: Brandon Henderson v. City of Los Angeles et al., USDC Case No. 6 2:24-CV-10938-MEMF-Ex. 7 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation of 8 information or items under this Order. 9 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 10 is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in the Good Cause 12 Statement. [Note: any request for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only protective order 13 that designates certain material as “Highly Confidential” requires a separate, 14 detailed showing of need.] 15 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 16 support staff). 17 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Nonparty that designates information or items 18 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 20 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 21 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 22 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 23 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 25 expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 26 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. House 27 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 1 2.9 Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other 2 legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a Party to 4 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party and have appeared in this 5 Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on 6 behalf of that Party, including support staff. 7 2.11 Party: any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 8 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 9 support staffs). 10 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or Discovery 11 Material in this Action. 12 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 13 support services (for example, photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing 14 exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 15 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 16 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated 17 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 19 from a Producing Party. 20 3. SCOPE 21 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected 22 Material (as defined above) but also any information copied or extracted from Protected 23 Material; all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and 24 any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might 25 reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the 26 orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at 27 trial. 1 4. DURATION 2 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 3 imposed by this Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise 4 in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition is the later of (1) 5 dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice, or (2) 6 final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, 7 trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or 8 applications for extension of time under applicable law. 9 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 10 5.1 Each Party or Nonparty that designates information or items for protection 11 under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that 12 qualifies under the appropriate standards.

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

Related

Miller v. Pancucci
141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. California, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brandon Henderson v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-henderson-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.