Christopher Wilson v. Los Angeles Police Department

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 12, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-05617
StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher Wilson v. Los Angeles Police Department (Christopher Wilson v. Los Angeles Police Department) 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
Christopher Wilson v. Los Angeles Police Department, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

l 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 || CHRISTOPHER WILSON, CASE NO. LACV21-5617-VBF-SHK an individual; Hon. Valerie B. Fairbank 6 Hon. Shashi H. Kewalramani 7 PLAINTIFF, 8 fPROPOSED} STIPULATED 9 ||LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 et al 11 DEFENDANTS 12 13 14 15 16 ORDER ON STIPULATION 17 The Court, finding good cause, Orders as follows: 18 INTRODUCTION 19 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 21 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 22 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 23 |I the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 24 |! Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 25 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 26 || from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 27 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties 28 || further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective

1 || Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 2 || 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 3 || when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 4 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angele 6 || Police Department. Plaintiff is seeking materials that Defendant the City of Los Angele 7 ||and Los Angeles Police Department (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as vide g || recordings, audio recordings, and other administrative materials and informatio g || currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes need special protectio 10 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 1 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California Penal

3 Code section 832.7, Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198

14 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976), as well as the common law of California, 1s California statutes and certain privileges afforded under Federal common law, including

the “official information,” “deliberative process,” and the “law enforcement investigatory privileges.” See Fed. R. Evid. 501; Cal. Const. Art. 1, §1; Cal. Evid. Code "7 §§ 915, 954, 1012, 1040 and 1043 et seq.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 33(b) and 34(b); Kerr 18 v. United States Dist. Ct., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975); Dowling v. American 19 Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423, 425, n.1 (9th Cir. 1992); Martinez v. City of 20 |! srockton, 132 F.R.D. 677, 683 (ED. Cal. 1990); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 21 || 653, 656-60 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Federal Trade Comm’n v. Warner Comm., Inc., 742 F.2d 22 11 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984); Jones v. City of Indianapolis, 216 FRD 440, 443-444 (SD 23 2003). There is also an ongoing criminal investigation and case. As such, requested 24 || materials may be protected by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. See United 25 || States ex rel. Burroughs v. DeNardi Corp., 167 F.R.D. 680, 687 (S.D.C. 1996); United 26 || States v. Winner, 641 F.2d 825, 831 (10% Cir. 1981); Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart 27 \| Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (10 Cir. 1984). Discovery in this case may also 28

1 || violate third parties’ right to privacy. Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 2 || 1497 (10 Cir. 1992); Stallworth vy. Brollini, 288 F.R.D. 439, 444 (N.D. CA. 2012). 3 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials an 4 ||information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this informatio 5 || with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to receive a fai 6 trial. 4 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolutio of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect informatio

9 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitte reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial

1 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 1s the intent of th parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and tha IS nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of th public record of this case. 16 DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit, Christopher Wilson v. Los Angeles 18 Police Department, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05617-VBF-SHK. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 21 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 22 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 24 Statement. 25 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 26 support staff). “Counsel” would also include Plaintiff in pro se. 27 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 28

1 ||items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 3 ||the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 4 || other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 5 disclosures or responses to discovery 1n this matter. 6 2.7. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 7 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 8 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 9 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 10 || House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 11 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 12 || other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Wilson v. Los Angeles Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-wilson-v-los-angeles-police-department-cacd-2021.