Devin Sejas v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 9, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-07553
StatusUnknown

This text of Devin Sejas v. County of Los Angeles (Devin Sejas v. County 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
Devin Sejas v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-07553-DSF-GJS Document 20 Filed 02/09/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:159

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVIN SEJAS, an individual, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-07553-DSF-GJS ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 vs. ) ORDER1 ) 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ) ANGELES SHERIFF’S ) 15 DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF ALEX ) VILLANUEVA; CITY OF ) 16 COMPTON; and DOES 1 to100, ) Inclusive ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) ) 19 20 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 25 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 26 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. 1 Case 2:21-cv-07553-DSF-GJS Document 20 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:160

1 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 2 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 3 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 4 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 5 under the applicable legal principles. 6 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 Unlike the parties in Oliner v. Kontrabecki, who sought to seal the entire 8 record including motions and the court’s opinion, in this case the parties seek 9 only to protect discovery materials and information that will involve the 10 production of confidential records. Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026 11 (9th Cir. 2014). The nature of the incident that gives rise to Plaintiff’s suit and 12 Plaintiff’s claims and allegations that Defendants violated his civil rights based on 13 Defendants’ policies and procedures, will result in discovery production that 14 includes: criminal investigation materials; police reports; confidential informant 15 information; medical records; financial materials; peace officer personnel 16 materials; information implicating the privacy rights of third parties (i.e., 17 bystander witnesses, emergency personnel information); and other private and 18 confidential materials for which require special protection from public disclosure. 19 The harms that could occur because of public disclosure include but are not 20 limited to: the risk to the personal safety of individuals identified in the 21 investigation materials; the improper use of demographic information collected 22 during the investigation that could lead to substantial financial harm; and the 23 potential violation of the Government privilege, resulting in future hesitancy by 24 private citizens to aid law enforcement in investigations because of the risk of 25 public disclosure of their information. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 26 623, 627 (1957) (the Government privilege encourages citizens to communicate 27 their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials by 28 preserving their anonymity). 2 Case 2:21-cv-07553-DSF-GJS Document 20 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:161

1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 3 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 5 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, 6 and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 7 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 8 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 9 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 10 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 12 SEAL 13 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 14 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 15 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 16 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 17 from the court to file material under seal. 18 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to 19 judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 20 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 21 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 22 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 23 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 24 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing 25 of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 26 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 27 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 28 Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent 3 Case 2:21-cv-07553-DSF-GJS Document 20 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:162

1 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 2 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute 3 good cause. 4 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 5 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 6 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 7 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 8 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be 9 filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the 10 party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 11 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent 12 evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be 13 provided by declaration. 14 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 15 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 16 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 17 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 18 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 19 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 20 redaction is not feasible. 21 2. DEFINITIONS 22 2.1 Action: Devin Sejas v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:21- 23 cv-07553-DSF-GJS. 24 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 25 designation of information or items under this Order. 26 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 27 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 28 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

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

Related

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
353 U.S. 26 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Aron Oliner v. John Kontrabecki
745 F.3d 1024 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Devin Sejas v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devin-sejas-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2022.