Brejeik Barrow v. City of Inglewood; Officer Gleb Shein; Officer Elias Alvarez; Officer Peter Lopresti

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 27, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-08058
StatusUnknown

This text of Brejeik Barrow v. City of Inglewood; Officer Gleb Shein; Officer Elias Alvarez; Officer Peter Lopresti (Brejeik Barrow v. City of Inglewood; Officer Gleb Shein; Officer Elias Alvarez; Officer Peter Lopresti) 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
Brejeik Barrow v. City of Inglewood; Officer Gleb Shein; Officer Elias Alvarez; Officer Peter Lopresti, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 OLIVAREZ MADRUGA LAW ORGANIZATION, LLP Thomas M. Madruga – SBN 160421 2 tmadruga@omlolaw.com 3 Carolina Velazquez – SBN 360857 cvelazquez@omlolaw.com 4 500 South Grand Avenue – 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 5 Tel: (213) 744-0099 6 Fax: (213) 744-0093 7 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF INGLEWOOD; 8 OFFICER GLEB SHEIN; OFFICER ELIAS ALVAREZ; 9 OFFICER PETER LOPRESTI 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 WESTERN DIVISION 14 BREJIEK BARROW, Case No.: 2:25-cv-08058-AH-AJR 15 Plaintiff, 16 vs. 17 CITY OF INGLEWOOD; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 18 OFFICER GLEB SHEIN (#1072); ORDER OFFICER ELAIS ALVAREZ (#914); 19 OFFICER PETER LOPRESTI (#913); 20 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 21 Defendants, 22 23 Complaint Filed: August 26, 2025 24 Trial Date: March 16, 2027 25 26 27 28 1 I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or private 3 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 4 purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties 5 hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following [Proposed] Stipulated 6 Protective Order (hereafter “this Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not 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 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to personnel 13 records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which special protection 14 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 15 action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to the context of this 16 litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important law enforcement 17 objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, as well as the 18 privacy rights of plaintiffs, the individual defendants, and third party witnesses. 19 Such confidential materials and information consists of, among other things, 20 materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: the United States 21 Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; 22 California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 23 and 1043, et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance 24 Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional 25 law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to the 26 public; or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state 27 or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also 28 1 contend that such confidential materials and information consists of materials entitled to 2 the Official Information Privilege. 3 Confidential Information with respect to the Defendants may include but is not 4 limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; issues regarding 5 the Police Office Bill of Rights (Government Code sections 3300-3312); private police 6 officer personnel records, Information protected under Pitches v. Superior Court 11 7 Cal. 3d, 531 (1974); Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963); email and written 8 correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the public in the 9 ordinary course of business including but not limited to addresses and telephone 10 numbers of third party witnesses; as well as other items subject to the Official 11 Information Privilege and other privileges. 12 Confidential Information with respect to the Plaintiffs may include but is not 13 limited to: email and written correspondence records; law enforcement records related 14 to Plaintiffs; and psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, records and 15 treatment plans. 16 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality pursuant 17 to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information; to facilitate the prompt 19 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials; to adequately protect 20 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential; to ensure that the parties are 21 permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in conduct of trial; to 22 address their handling at the end of the litigation; and serve the ends of justice, a 23 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 24 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 25 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 26 confidential, non-public manner; and there is good cause why it should not be part of 27 the public record of this case. 28 1 III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 3 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 4 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be 5 applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 6 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 7 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 8 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. Kamakana v. City and County 9 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 10 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 11 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 12 showing, and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 13 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to material that a 14 party seeks to file under seal). The parties’ mere designation of material as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 16 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 17 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a 18 party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, 19 not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 20 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific 21 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). 22 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 23 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 24 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 25 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 26 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 27 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 28 1 IV. DEFINITIONS 2 4.1 Action: Brejiek Barrow vs. City of Inglewood, Officer Gleb Shein; Officer 3 Elais Alvarez; Officer Peter Lopresti, Case No. 2:25-cv-08058-AH-AJR.

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

Related

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Lohrenz v. Donnelly
187 F.R.D. 1 (District of Columbia, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brejeik Barrow v. City of Inglewood; Officer Gleb Shein; Officer Elias Alvarez; Officer Peter Lopresti, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brejeik-barrow-v-city-of-inglewood-officer-gleb-shein-officer-elias-cacd-2026.