Cuauhtemoc Lugo v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 28, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-05496
StatusUnknown

This text of Cuauhtemoc Lugo v. City of Los Angeles (Cuauhtemoc Lugo 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
Cuauhtemoc Lugo v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CUAUHTEMOC LUGO, Case No. 2:24-cv-05496 RGK(Ex)

12 Plaintiff(s), STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. 14

15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; OFFICER CARLOS; OFFICER DEHARO; 16 SERGEANT JOHNSON; SERGEANT 17 KIEFER, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 18

19 Defendant(s). 20 21 22 1. INTRODUCTION 23 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 24 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 25 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 26 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 27 petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 1 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 2 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 3 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 4 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 5 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“CITY) and individual sworn 6 police officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) on one side; and on 7 the other, Plaintiff Cuauhtemoc Lugo, who claims damages from the City and LAPD 8 Officers. 9 As such, Plaintiff may seek materials and information that the City maintains 10 as confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved in the incident, 11 video recordings (including Body-Worn Video recordings and Digital In-Car Video 12 recordings), audio recordings, and other administrative materials and information 13 currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes needs special 14 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 15 this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information contained in the personnel 16 files of the Police Officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains 17 as strictly confidential and which the City believes needs special protection from 18 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 19 The City asserts that the confidentiality of materials and information sought by 20 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law as evidenced by, inter alia, 21 California Penal Code section 832.7, California Evidence Code section 1043 et. seq. 22 and Kerr v. United States District Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), 23 aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 192, 198 (9th. Cir. 24 1990); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Call 1992). The City does not 25 publicly release the materials and information referenced above except under 26 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 27 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD officers 1 was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 2 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 3 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 4 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 5 paralegals, and expert witnesses involved in the case, as well as the corollary risk of 6 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 7 officers referenced in the materials and information. 8 Defendants seek discovery of various information relating to Plaintiff’s 9 damages claims, including employment information, housing information, financial 10 information, and confidential medical records that may be personal, private, and 11 potentially embarrassing if unnecessarily disseminated; thus, Plaintiff contends such 12 information not be disseminated beyond this litigation. 13 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 14 resolution of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 15 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 16 parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for 17 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of litigation, and serve 18 the ends of justice, a protective order is necessary. Such information will not be 19 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and nothing will be designated without 20 a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 21 and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 22 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties 23 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective 24 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79- 25 5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 26 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 27 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 1 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 2 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd 3 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 4 Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 5 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 6 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 7 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 8 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 9 does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing 10 that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 11 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 12 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 13 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 14 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 15 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 16 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 17 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 18 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 19 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 20 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 21 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 22 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 23 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 24 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 25 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 26 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 27 /// 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: Cuauhtemoc Lugo v. City of Los Angeles et. al. Case No. 2:24- 3 cv-05496 RGK(Ex). 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 5 of information or items under this Order.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cuauhtemoc Lugo v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuauhtemoc-lugo-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2024.