Cauthen Lewis v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 14, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-10014·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-10014-DMG-MAA Document 45 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:199

CAUTHEN LEWIS, CASE NO. CV21-10014-DMG-MAAx

Hon. Dolly M. Gee – Ctrm. 8C, 8th Fl. (First St.) Hon. Mag. Maria A. Audero – Ctrm. 690, 6th Fl.

Plaintiff, (Roybal) v. [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendants.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 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. The parties further

1 Case 2:21-cv-10014-DMG-MAA Document 45 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:200

acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 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. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve confidential information. Plaintiff is seeking information that Defendant City of Los Angeles maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved in this incident, internal affairs materials and information, and other administrative material currently in the possession of the City. Plaintiff is also seeking official information contained in the personnel files of the involved police officers, which the City maintains as strictly confidential. The City believes these documents need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. These materials have not been publically released. The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced by Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Unfettered disclosure of the confidential information contained in these files, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City to receive a fair trial. 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 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 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

2 Case 2:21-cv-10014-DMG-MAA Document 45 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:201

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 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 3.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation of information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 3.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 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. 3.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 3.5 Designating Party: Party or Nonparty that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that is produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 3.8 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 3.9 Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

3 Case 2:21-cv-10014-DMG-MAA Document 45 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:202

3.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 3.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, In-House Counsel, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 3.12 Producing Party: A Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 3.13 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 3.14 Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3.15 Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 4. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Stipulated Protective Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. / / / / / /

4 Case 2:21-cv-10014-DMG-MAA Document 45 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:203

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

Cauthen Lewis v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Cauthen Lewis v. City of Los Angeles (Cauthen Lewis v. City of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related