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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 27, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-08058·Unknown

Opinion

Thomas M. Madruga – SBN 160421 tmadruga@omlolaw.com Carolina Velazquez – SBN 360857 cvelazquez@omlolaw.com 500 South Grand Avenue – 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 744-0099 Fax: (213) 744-0093 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF INGLEWOOD; OFFICER GLEB SHEIN; OFFICER ELIAS ALVAREZ; BREJIEK BARROW, Case No.: 2:25-cv-08058-AH-AJR Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF INGLEWOOD; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE OFFICER GLEB SHEIN (#1072); ORDER OFFICER ELAIS ALVAREZ (#914); OFFICER PETER LOPRESTI (#913); and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Complaint Filed: August 26, 2025 Trial Date: March 16, 2027 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order (hereafter “this Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery; and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to personnel records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to the context of this litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important law enforcement objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, as well as the privacy rights of plaintiffs, the individual defendants, and third party witnesses. Such confidential materials and information consists of, among other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: the United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043, et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public; or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and information consists of materials entitled to the Official Information Privilege. Confidential Information with respect to the Defendants may include but is not limited to: personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; issues regarding the Police Office Bill of Rights (Government Code sections 3300-3312); private police officer personnel records, Information protected under Pitches v. Superior Court 11 Cal. 3d, 531 (1974); Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963); email and written correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the public in the ordinary course of business including but not limited to addresses and telephone numbers of third party witnesses; as well as other items subject to the Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential Information with respect to the Plaintiffs may include but is not limited to: email and written correspondence records; law enforcement records related to Plaintiffs; and psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, records and treatment plans. The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 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 to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in 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. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing, and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to material that a party seeks to file under seal). The parties’ mere designation of material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4.1 Action: Brejiek Barrow vs. City of Inglewood, Officer Gleb Shein; Officer Elais Alvarez; Officer Peter Lopresti, Case No. 2:25-cv-08058-AH-AJR. 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 4.4 Counsel: General Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that des

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

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

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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)