Daimon McGuire v. The City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 5, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00614
StatusUnknown

This text of Daimon McGuire v. The City of Los Angeles (Daimon McGuire v. The 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
Daimon McGuire v. The City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Daimon McGuire CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00614-DSF-KES 11 Hon. Dale S. Fischer, Ctrm. 7D

12 Hon. Karen E. Scott, Ctrm. 6D(Roybal) Plaintiff(s), 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER v.

The citty of los ángeles 15 Officer Chandler 38434 Officer Portillo 41221 16 Defendant(s). 17

18 19 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 22 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 23 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 24 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 25 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 26 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 27 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 1 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 2 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 3 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 4 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 5 6 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 This action involves employees of the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) which 8 include members of the City’s Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”). The nature of 9 the incident that gives rise to Plaintiff’s suit and Plaintiff’s claims and allegations, will 10 result in discovery production that includes: police reports and evidence; investigation 11 reports and evidence; potentially peace officer personnel materials; information 12 implicating the privacy rights of third parties (i.e., bystander witnesses, emergency 13 personnel information); and other private and confidential materials for which require 14 special protection from public disclosure. 15 Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendants 16 maintain as confidential such as personnel files of the police and/or sworn officers 17 involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, 18 audio recordings, photographs, and information and other administrative materials and 19 information currently in the possession of the City and which Defendants believe need 20 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 21 prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information contained in the 22 personnel files of the police and/or sworn officers involved in the subject incident, which 23 are maintained as strictly confidential and which Defendants believe need special 24 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 25 this litigation. 26 Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 27 by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 1 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Defendant has not publicly 2 released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order or 3 pursuant to a court order, if at all. The personnel materials and information are of the type 4 that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against the City’s respective employees, 5 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the employee conduct 6 was considered to be contrary to policy. 7 Defendants contend that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 8 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 9 and undue disclosure Plaintiff or anyone he involves or employs to be involved in this 10 case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and 11 legal harm on the part of the City’s employees referenced in the materials and 12 information. 13 Defendants also contend that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 14 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 15 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of Defendants herein to receive a 16 fair trial. 17 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 18 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 19 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 20 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 21 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 22 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 23 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 24 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 25 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 26 public record of this case. 27 The Court finds Good Cause for, by entry of this Protective Order regarding 1 the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 2 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege 3 claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. 4 5 2. DEFINITIONS 6 2.1 Action: McGuire v. City of Los Angeles, et al., case no. 2:25-cv-00614-DSF- 7 KES. 8 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 9 information or items under this Order. 10 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 11 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 13 Statement. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 15 support staff). 16 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 17 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 19 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 20 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 21 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 22 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent 23 to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert 24 witness or as a consultant in this Action. 25 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 26 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 27 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other 1 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 2 Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in 3 this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on 4 behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 5 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 7 support staffs). 8 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 9 Material in this Action.

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

Related

Walbridge-Aldinger Co. v. Rudd
1 F.2d 187 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daimon McGuire v. The City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daimon-mcguire-v-the-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.