Drew Foy v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 3, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-09247
StatusUnknown

This text of Drew Foy v. City of Los Angeles (Drew Foy 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
Drew Foy 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 DREW FOY, an individual; 12 KASSANDRA CENTENO, an individual Case No. 2:24-cv-09247-AH-AJRX 13 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 14 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public 15 entity, OFFICER RAYMOND ARMENTA; OFFICER LUCERA 16 FRIAS, and DOE OFFICERS 1-5. Defendants. 17 18 19 1. GENERAL 20 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 21 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 22 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 23 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 24 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 25 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 26 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 27 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 28 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 1 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 2 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 3 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 4 from the court to file material under seal. 5 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 6 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“CITY) and individual sworn police 7 officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) on one side; and on the other, 8 Plaintiffs who claim damages from the City and LAPD Officers. 9 As such, Plaintiff may seek materials and information that the City maintains as 10 confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved in the incident, video 11 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 as 17 strictly confidential and which the City believes needs special protection from public 18 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 21 alia, California Penal Code section 832.7, California Evidence Code section 1043 et. 22 seq. and Kerr v. United States District Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 23 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 24 (9th Cir. 1990); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The City has not 25 and does not publicly release the materials and information referenced above except 26 under a protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and 27 information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against 28 1 LAPD officers and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where 2 officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 3 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 4 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 5 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 6 paralegals, and expert witnesses involved in the case, as well as the corollary risk of 7 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 8 officers referenced in the materials and information. 9 Defendants also seek discovery of various information relating to Plaintiff’s 10 damages claims, including employment information, housing information, financial 11 information, and confidential medical records that may be personal, private, and 12 potentially embarrassing if unnecessarily disseminated; thus, Plaintiff contends such 13 information should not be disseminated beyond this litigation. 14 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolute 15 of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 16 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 17 permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 18 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of litigation, and serve the ends of 19 justice, a protective order is necessary, Such information will not be designated as 20 confidential for tactical reasons and nothing will be designated without a good faith 21 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 22 cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 23 2. DEFINITIONS 24 2.1 Action: Foy et. al. v. City of Los Angeles et. al. Case No. 2:24-CV- 25 09247-AR-AJRX. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 27 information or items under this Order. 28 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 2 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 4 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 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 10 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 11 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 12 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 13 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 14 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 15 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 16 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 17 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 18 counsel. 19 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 20 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 21 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 22 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 23 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 24 appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. 25 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 26 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 27 support staffs). 28 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)
Drew Foy v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drew-foy-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.