Donyae Haley v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 4, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-10645·Unknown

Opinion

NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

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

Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE v. ORDER

GONZALEZ, OFFICER OFFICERS 1-10, Defendants.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file Confidential Information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT The parties represent that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential records (including but not limited to employment/personnel records1 and information2 of individually named Defendants and/or other employees of the County). In addition, Defendants anticipate conducting discovery as to any potential criminal history of Plaintiff and/or decedent, which may include disclosure of sealed, confidential or otherwise sensitive information. In order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. The parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 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. 2 See Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., 2015 WL 3545921, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015), in which the court granted a request to seal specified documents to the extent they reflected employee numbers/identification. that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Donyae Haley v. the City of Los Angeles, et. al., USDC Case No. 2:24-cv-10645-MWF-JPRx. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Nonparty that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a Party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that Party, including support staff. 2.11 Party: any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (for example, photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above) but also any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations this Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition is the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice, or (2) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time under applicable law. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Each Party or Nonparty that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. To the extent practicable, the Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (for example, to unnecessarily encumber the case-development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items it designated for protection do not qualify for that level of protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the inapplicable designation. 5.2 Except as ot

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

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

Donyae Haley v. City of Los Angeles (Donyae Haley v. City of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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