Edwin Vasquez v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 11, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-04661
StatusUnknown

This text of Edwin Vasquez v. City of Los Angeles (Edwin Vasquez 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
Edwin Vasquez v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

13 EDWIN VASQUEZ, an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-04661-DSF-MRWx

14 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 vs. Referred for Discovery Purposes to the 16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Honorable Dale S. Fischer 17 California municipal entity; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, 18 a California municipal entity, Officer GABRIEL GARCIA, an individual; 19 and DOES 1-100 inclusive,

20 Defendants.

22 23 Plaintiff EDWIN VASQUEZ (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants, CITY OF LOS 24 ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND OFFICER GABRIEL 25 26 GARCIA, (“Defendants”) (collectively, “the Parties”) jointly present this Stipulated 27 Protective Order for the Court’s approval. 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 3 This litigation arises from a use of force incident which occurred on April 23, 4 2021. Plaintiff Edwin Vasquez filed his Complaint for Damages on May 26, 2022, 5 wherein he asserts the following principal causes of action: denial of medical care 6 7 under 42 U.S.C. 1983, excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983, failure to train and 8 supervise under 42 U.S.C. 1983, failure to investigate under 42 U.S.C. 1983, violation 9 of right to associate under 42 U.S.C. 1983, negligence, violation of the Bane Act, 10 11 violation of Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of Rehabilitation Act, and 12 violation of the Ralph Act. Plaintiff is represented by McMurray Henriks, LLP. The 13 LAPD and City of Los Angeles Office are represented by the Office of the City 14 15 Attorney (DCA Surekha A. Shepherd) and LAPD Officer Gabriel Garcia is represented 16 by Stone Busailah, LLP. 17 18 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of confidential, 20 21 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 22 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 23 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 24 25 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 26 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 27 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 1 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Stipulated 3 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 4 5 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 6 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8

9 This action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angeles 10 11 Police Department (“LAPD”) on one side; and on the other, Plaintiff Edwin Vasquez 12 who claims damages from the City and Police Officer Gabriel Garcia for past and future 13 medical expenses and other unspecified general damages incurred as a result of 14 15 Defendant’s alleged use of excessive force. 16 As such, Plaintiff seeks materials and information that Defendant the City of Los 17 Angeles, et al. (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the Police 18 19 Officers involved in the incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, Force 20 Investigation Division materials and information, video recordings (including Body- 21 Worn Video recordings and Digital In-Car Video recordings), audio recordings, and 22 23 other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City 24 and which the City believes needs special protection from public disclosure and from 25 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff also seeks official 26 27 information contained in the personnel files of the Police Officers involved in the 1 subject incident, which the City maintains as strictly confidential and which the City 2 believes needs special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 3 other than prosecuting this litigation. By entering into the stipulated protective order, 4 5 the City Defendants and Defendant Garcia do not agree that all of the confidential 6 materials requested by Plaintiff will in fact be produced. Rather, Defendants may agree 7 to produce certain confidential records, subject to this protective order, however. 8 9 The City asserts that the confidentiality of materials and information sought by 10 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law as evidenced by, inter alia, 11 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States District Ct. for N.D. 12 13 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 14 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 15 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 16 17 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD officers 18 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where officers’ conduct was 19 considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 20 21 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 22 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 23 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 24 25 paralegals, and expert witnesses involved in the case, as well as the corollary risk of 26 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 27 officers referenced in the materials and information. 1 Defendants seek discovery of various information relating to Plaintiff’s damages 2 claims, including employment information, and confidential medical records that may 3 be personal, private, and potentially embarrassing if unnecessarily disseminated; thus, 4 5 Plaintiff contends such information not be disseminated beyond this litigation. 6 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 7 resolute of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 8 9 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 10 parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 11 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of litigation, and serve the 12 13 ends of justice, a protective order for such information will not be designated as 14 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 15 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is 16 17 good cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19

20 2.1 Action: The above-captioned suit. 21 2.2 Party: Any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 22 23 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 24 (and their support staff). 25 2.3 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 26 27 Discovery Material in this Action.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Smith v. Dall
13 Cal. 510 (California Supreme Court, 1859)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Edwin Vasquez v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-vasquez-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.