Gilkey v. L.A.P.D.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 6, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-02817
StatusUnknown

This text of Gilkey v. L.A.P.D. (Gilkey v. L.A.P.D.) 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
Gilkey v. L.A.P.D., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

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

11 ATWAQUE GILKEY, CASE NO. CV22-2817-MCS(RAO) Honorable Mark C. Scarsi 12 Plaintiff, Honorable Rozella A. Oliver

13 v. 14 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 LA.P.D. (CITY OF LOS ANGELES

15 POLICE DEPARTMENT), PAUL EVIETH, a government 16 employee; LAPD OFFICER NAME 17 UNKNOWN-I, a government employee;

18 LAPD OFFICER NAME UNKNOWN-2, a government 19 employee; LAPD OFFICER NAME 20 UNKNOWN-3, a government 21 employee;

22 Defendants.

25 / / /

26 / / /

28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 8 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), 11 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 12 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 13 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 14 the Court to file material under seal. 15 16 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 This action involves Officer Evieth and City of Los Angeles (“Defendants”). 18 Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendants maintain as 19 confidential, such as Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, 20 audio recordings, and information, personnel records and other administrative 21 materials and information currently in the possession of Defendants which may be 22 entitled to special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 23 other than prosecuting this litigation. Additionally, discovery may include sensitive 24 confidential financial and business information, which may require heightened 25 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 26 this litigation. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 27 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 1 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 2 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 3 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 4 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 5 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 6 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 7 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 8 case. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential 9 information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential 10 information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that are 11 reasonably likely to reveal Confidential information. 12 13 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 14 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 15 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 16 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 17 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 18 material under seal. 19 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 20 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 21 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 22 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 23 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 24 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 25 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 26 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 27 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 1 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 2 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 3 protectable—constitute good cause. 4 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 5 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 6 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 7 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 8 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 9 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 10 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 11 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 12 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 13 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 14 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 15 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 16 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be 17 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 18 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 19 20 2. DEFINITIONS 21 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 22 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 23 of information or items under this Order. 24 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 25 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 26 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 27 Cause Statement. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the 1 Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that 2 are reasonably likely to reveal Confidential information. References to 3 “CONFIDENTIAL” information or items in this Protective Order shall also include 4 information or items designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 5 EYES ONLY,” unless stated otherwise. 6 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 7 their support staff). 8 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 9 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 10 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 11 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 12 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 13 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 14 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gilkey v. L.A.P.D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilkey-v-lapd-cacd-2023.