Emmitt Bryant v. City of Los Angeles, Officer Jordan T. Patton, and Officer Luis A. Medina

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 18, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-07237·Unknown

Opinion

1 HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney 2 DENISE C. MILLS, Chief Deputy City Attorney KATHLEEN KENEALY, Chief Assistant City Attorney 3 CHRISTIAN R. BOJORQUEZ, Deputy City Attorney 4 ERIN CHOI, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 342323) 200 North Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East 5 Los Angeles, CA 90012 6 Tel.: (213) 202-5429 | Fax: (213) 978-8785 7 E-mail: erin.choi@lacity.org

8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, OFFICER JORDAN T. PATTON, and OFFICER LUIS A. MEDINA 10

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13

14 EMMITT BRYANT Case No. 2:25−cv−07237−SSC 15 Plaintiff(s), v. 16 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 17 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; ORDER OFFICER JORDAN T. PATTON 18 (#40574); OFFICER LUIS A. HONORABLE STEPHANIE S. 19 MEDINA (#44066); and DOES 1 CHRISTENSEN THROUGH 10, inclusive United States Magistrate Judge 20 Defendant(s). 21

23 1. INTRODUCTION 24 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 25 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 26 27 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 1 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 2 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 3 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 4 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 5 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 6 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 7 legal principles. 8 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 9 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and 10 the parties’ representations that discovery in this case may involve the 11 production of confidential records, and including but not limited to 12 employment/personnel records, information of individually named 13 Defendants and/or other employees of the City, information otherwise 14 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 15 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 16 rules, case decisions, or common law. 17 Defendants maintain as confidential such as personnel files of the 18 peace officer(s) involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and 19 information, video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, and 20 information and other administrative materials and information 21 22 currently in the possession of Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”), and 23 Defendants believe need special protection from public disclosure and 24 from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation. To the 25 extent personnel files of peace officers involved in the subject incident 26 are sought in discovery, personnel files are maintained as strictly 27 confidential and need special protection from public disclosure and from 1 The confidentiality of the materials and information is recognized 2 by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California Penal 3 Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 4 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975); California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 5 et. seq; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552; the right to privacy; 6 decisional law relating to such provisions; official information privilege; 7 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 8 Further, discovery may require depositions, written discovery 9 and/or the production of certain information the public disclosure of 10 which could compromise officer safety, and/or raise security issues. 11 Additionally, public disclosure of such information poses a substantial 12 risk of embarrassment, oppression, and/or physical harm to peace 13 officers whose confidential information is disclosed. The risk of harm to 14 peace officers is greater than the risk of harm to other government 15 employees, due to the nature of their profession. The benefit of public 16 disclosure of confidential information is minimal while the potential 17 disadvantages are great. Defendants also contend that the unfettered 18 disclosure of the materials and information, absent a Protective Order, 19 would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in 20 the area, impacting the rights of Defendants herein to receive a fair trial. 21 22 To expedite the flow of information, facilitate the prompt resolution 23 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect 24 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, ensure that the 25 parties are permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such material in 26 connection with this action, address their handling of such material at 27 the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a Protective Order 1 designate any information/documents as confidential without a good 2 faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in a 3 confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a 4 compelling reason why it should not be part of the public record of this 5 case. 6 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 7 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 9 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 10 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 11 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 13 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 14 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 15 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 16 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 17 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 18 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 19 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 20 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 21 22 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 23 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 24 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 25 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 26 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 27 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 1 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 2 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 3 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 4 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 5 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 6 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 7 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 8 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 9 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 10 seal must be provided by declaration. 11 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 12 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 13 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 14 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 15 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed.

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

Emmitt Bryant v. City of Los Angeles, Officer Jordan T. Patton, and Officer Luis A. Medina, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Emmitt Bryant v. City of Los Angeles, Officer Jordan T. Patton, and Officer Luis A. Medina (Emmitt Bryant v. City of Los Angeles, Officer Jordan T. Patton, and Officer Luis A. Medina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Hooper-Mankin Co. v. Matthew Addy Co.
4 F.2d 187 (Sixth Circuit, 1925)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)