Evalyn Martinez v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 15, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-09491
StatusUnknown

This text of Evalyn Martinez v. City of Los Angeles (Evalyn Martinez 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
Evalyn Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EVALYN MARTINEZ, an individual, | Case No. 2:23-ev-09491-SVW-SK 12 B Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 V. 15| CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DOES 1 16 through 20, inclusive, M7 Defendant. 8] 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20| 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 23] enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 24] Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 25 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 27] under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 28] in Section 12.3 (Filing Protected Material), below, that this Stipulated Protective

1 Order does not entitle them to a file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 2 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 3 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 4 5 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 This action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angeles 7 Police Department. Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendants the 8 City of Los Angeles et al. (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as personnel files 9 of the police officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, Internal Investigation 10 materials and information and other administrative materials and information 11 currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes need special 12 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 13 this litigation. Further, Plaintiff is seeking information that involves minors and 14 information provided by third-party witnesses. Plaintiff is also seeking official 15 information contained in the personnel files of the police officers involved in the 16 subject incident, which the City maintains as strictly confidential and which the City 17 believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 18 other than prosecuting this litigation. 19 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 20 by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 21 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 22 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 23 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 24 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 25 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles 26 Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 27 proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD 28 policy. 1 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 2 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 3 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 4 paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 5 officers referenced in the materials and information. 6 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 7 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 8 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to 9 receive a fair trial. 10 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 11 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 12 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 13 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 14 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 15 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 16 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 17 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 18 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 19 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 20 Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 21 the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of resolving any 22 disagreements. 23 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby 24 jointly request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding 25 confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. 26 However, the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation 27 shall not be construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal 28 1 statements or privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as 2 part of any such Court Order. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 8 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 9 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 10 the Good Cause Statement. 11 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 their support staff). 13 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 14 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 17 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 19 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 22 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 25 counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 27 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 28 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 1 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 2 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 3 which has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Evalyn Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evalyn-martinez-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2024.