Freddy Ackerman v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 21, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-06298·Unknown

Opinion

FREDDY ACKERMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-06298-PA-PD

Plaintiff Honorable Percy Anderson Magistrate: Honorable Patricia vs. Donohue

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, MAYOR KAREN STIPULATED PROTECTIVE BASS, in her individual and official ORDER

capacity as Mayor of the City of Los

Angeles, THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, a division of ☒ Check if submitted without material modifications to PD form the City of Los Angeles, POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERIM CHIEF DOMINIC CHOI, in his individual and official capacity, LOS ANGELES RADKE in his individual and official capacity; AND DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, in their individual and official capacities. Defendants.

/ / / 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to 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 Stipulated Protective 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 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“CITY) and individual sworn police officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) on one side; and on the other, Plaintiff Freddy Ackerman who claims damages from the City and LAPD Officers. As such, Plaintiff may seek materials and information that the City maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved in the incident, video recordings (including Body-Worn Video recordings and Digital In-Car Video recordings), audio recordings, and other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes needs special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information contained in the personnel strictly confidential and which the City believes needs special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. The City asserts that the confidentiality of materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law as evidenced by, inter alia, California Penal Code section 832.7, California Evidence Code section 1043 et. seq. and Kerr v. United States District Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The City has not and does not publicly release the materials and information referenced above except under a protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD officers and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals, and expert witnesses involved in the case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. Defendants also seek discovery of various information relating to Plaintiff’s damages claims, including employment information, housing information, financial information, and confidential medical records that may be personal, private, and potentially embarrassing if unnecessarily disseminated; thus, Plaintiff contends such information should not be disseminated beyond this litigation. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolute of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order is necessary, Such information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and nothing will be designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Ackerman v. City of Los Angeles et. al., Case No. 2:24-cv- 06298-PA-PD. 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party 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 Non-Party 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 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 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 to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes 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 Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demon

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

Freddy Ackerman v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

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

Related