Dominique Ware v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 31, 2023
Docket2:21-cv-06237
StatusUnknown

This text of Dominique Ware v. City of Los Angeles (Dominique Ware 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
Dominique Ware v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-06237-CAS-AGR Document 49 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1of16 Page ID #:210

1 || Thomas C. Hurrell, State Bar No. 119876 E-Mail: te ee oeeen 2 || Farid Sharaby, State Bar No. 278259 E-Mail: fsharaby@hurrellcantrall.com 3 || Tasha T. Salveron, State Bar No. 336596 E-Mail: tsalveron@hurrelleantrall.com 4 || HURRELL CAN LL LLP 725 8. Bagucrag Street, Suite 3800 5 || Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: 13) 426-2000 6 || Facsimile: (213) 426-2020 7 || Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF LOS ANGELES 8 || DANTE T. PRIDE (SBN 262362) Conde@oncelaw inn com 9 | ZAC Y I. AVINA (SBN 325460) SpE endian Ament 10 E PRIDE LAW FIRM 2831 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 104 , 11 || San Diego, CA 92108 So Tel: 619-516-8166 es 12 || Fax: 619-785-3414 Hess 13/||Attorneys for Plaintiff DOMINIQUE WARE Fabs ats 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UO gu8 4 baer 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 2 16 17 || DOMINIQUE WARE, an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-06237 CAS (AGRx) 18 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY MATTER 19 v. STIPULATED [PROPOSED} PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 || CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1-25, inclusive; Judge: Hon. Alicia G. Rosenberg 21 Crtrm.: 550 Defendant. Be | eres □□□ to Judge Christina A. Snyder, ourtroom “apy 23 Trial Date: Mav 2. 2023 24 25||1. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 26 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or private 27 || information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 28 || purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties

Case 2:21-cv-06237-CAS-AGR Document 49 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2o0f16 Page ID#:211

1 || hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following [Proposed] Stipulated 2 || Protective Order (hereafter “this Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order 3 || does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery; and 4 || that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 5 || information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 6 || legal principles. 7\\2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to personnel 9 || records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which special protection 10 || from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this a 11 || action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to the context of this ee 12 || litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important law enforcement 3 235 13 || objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, as well as Z pee 14 || the privacy rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants, and third party witnesses. 3 ae 15 || Such confidential materials and information consists of, among other things, materials sa 16 || entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: the United States ° 17 || Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; 18 || California Penal Code 8§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 19 ||and 1043, et seqg.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance 20 || Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional 21 || law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to 22 || the public; or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 23 || state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also 24 || contend that such confidential materials and information consists of materials entitled 25 || to the Official Information Privilege. 26 Confidential information with respect to the Defendant may include: personnel 27 || files; internal investigative files and documents; email and written correspondence 28 records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the public in the ordinary

Case 2:21-cv-06237-CAS-AGR Document 49 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3of16 Page ID#:212

1 || course of business, as well as other items subject to the Official Information Privilege 2||and other privileges. Confidential information with respect to the Plaintiff may 3 |/include: employment and financial records; email and written correspondence 4 || records; and psychological notes, evaluations, and report and treatment plans relating 5 || to the treatment, care, and evaluation of the Plaintiff. 6 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 7 || pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 8 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information; to facilitate the prompt 9 ||resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials; to adequately 10 || protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential; to ensure that the 11 || parties are permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in conduct ae 12 || of trial; to address their handling at the end of the litigation; and serve the ends of ase 13 || justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 2 B58 14 || intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 2 ue 15 || reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been oe 16 || maintained in a confidential, non-public manner; and there is good cause why it ~ ° 17 || should not be part of the public record of this case. 18|/}3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 19 SEAL 20 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 21 || Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 22 || Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 23 || be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 24 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 25 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 26 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 27 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 28 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc.,

Case 2:21-cv-06237-CAS-AGR Document 49 Filed 01/31/23 Page 4o0f16 Page ID #:213

1 || 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 2 ||cause showing, and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 3 || proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 4|| material that a party seeks to file under seal). The parties’ mere designation of 5 || material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission of competent 6 || evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 7 || qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 8 Further, if a party requests sealing related to dispositive motion or trial, then 9 || compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 10 ||sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See ie 11 || Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). 3 a 12 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 3 3 3 13 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Clark v. Fleming
4 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1887)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dominique Ware v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominique-ware-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.