Daron Ford v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 28, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-05799
StatusUnknown

This text of Daron Ford v. City of Los Angeles (Daron Ford 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
Daron Ford v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DARON FORD 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-05799-MEMF- 13 v. AJR

14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et. al [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 Defendant(s).

16 17 18 1. GENERAL 19 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 20 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 21 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 22 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 23 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 24 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 25 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 26 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 27 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 28 set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 1 them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 2 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 3 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 (“CITY) and individual sworn 6 police officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) on one side; and on 7 the other, Plaintiff Daron Ford, 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 released 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 28 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where officers’ conduct 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 23 2. DEFINITIONS 24 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit Daron Ford v. City of Los Angeles 25 et. al. Case No. 2:24-cv-05799-MEMF-AJR. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 27 of information or items under this Order. 28 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 2 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 3 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 4 Cause Statement. 5 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 6 support staff). 7 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 8 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 9 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 11 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 12 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 13 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 14 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 15 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 16 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 17 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 18 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 19 counsel. 20 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 21 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 22 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 23 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 24 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 25 has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. 26 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 27 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 28 support staffs). 1 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in 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)
Daron Ford v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daron-ford-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.