Donyae Haley v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 4, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-10645
StatusUnknown

This text of Donyae Haley v. City of Los Angeles (Donyae Haley 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
Donyae Haley v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

2 NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DONYAE HALEY, CASE NO. CV24-10645-MWF-JPRx Hon. Michael W Fitzgerald– Ctrm. 5A 12 Hon. Jean P. Rosenbluth– Ctrm. 880

13 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE 14 v. ORDER

15 16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, OFFICER GONZALEZ, OFFICER 17 MASTROCINQUE, AND DOE OFFICERS 1-10, 18 Defendants. 19

20 21 22 1. INTRODUCTION 23 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 26 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 27 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 1 Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 2 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 3 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 4 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 5 Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does not 6 entitle them to file Confidential Information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth 7 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 8 Party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 9 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 The parties represent that discovery in this case will involve the production of 11 confidential records (including but not limited to employment/personnel records1 and 12 information2 of individually named Defendants and/or other employees of the County). 13 In addition, Defendants anticipate conducting discovery as to any potential criminal 14 history of Plaintiff and/or decedent, which may include disclosure of sealed, 15 confidential or otherwise sensitive information. In order to expedite the flow of 16 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 17 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 18 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 19 material in connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at the 20 end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 21 information is justified in this matter. The parties shall not designate any 22 information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief that such 23 information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 24 25 1 “Government personnel files are considered official information.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana (9th Cir.1990) 936 F.2d 1027, 1033; Miller v. Pancucci(C.D. Cal. 1992) 141 F.R.D. 292, 299. 26 2 See Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., 2015 WL 3545921, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 27 June 5, 2015), in which the court granted a request to seal specified documents to the extent they reflected employee numbers/identification. 1 that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be part of the public 2 record of this case. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: Donyae Haley v. the City of Los Angeles, et. al., USDC Case No. 5 2:24-cv-10645-MWF-JPRx. 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation 7 of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 9 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 10 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in the Good Cause 11 Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 13 their support staff). 14 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Nonparty that designates information or items 15 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 18 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 19 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 20 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 22 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 23 an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. 25 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 26 counsel. 27 2.9 Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 1 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 2 Party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party and have appeared 3 in this Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 4 appeared on behalf of that Party, including 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 Nonparty that produces Disclosure or 9 Discovery Material in this Action. 10 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 11 support services (for example, photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing 12 exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 13 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 14 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated 15 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 17 Material from a Producing Party. 18 3. SCOPE 19 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 20 Protected Material (as defined above) but also any information copied or extracted 21 from Protected Material; all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of 22 Protected Material; and any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or 23 their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 24 Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the 25 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 26 4. DURATION 27 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 1 this Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing 2 or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition is the later of (1) dismissal of all 3 claims and defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice, or (2) final judgment 4 after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or 5 reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or 6 applications for extension of time under applicable law. 7 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 8 5.1 Each Party or Nonparty that designates information or items for 9 protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific 10 material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. To the extent practicable, the 11 Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, 12 documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other 13 portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection 14 is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. 15 Indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited.

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

Related

Miller v. Pancucci
141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. California, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Donyae Haley v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donyae-haley-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.