Isaiah Clifton Gaines v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 7, 2023
Docket2:21-cv-09992
StatusUnknown

This text of Isaiah Clifton Gaines v. City of Los Angeles (Isaiah Clifton Gaines 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
Isaiah Clifton Gaines v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN 184980) 2 CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney (SBN 115453) SHANT TASLAKIAN, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 272485) 3 200 N. Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012 4 Tel: (213) 978-8722 Fax: (213) 978-8785 Email: Shant.Taslakian@lacity.org 5 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES POLICE 6 DEPARTMENT

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ISAIAH CLIFTON GAINES, CASE NO. CV21-09992-AB-MRW 12 Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr; 1st St CH - Ctrm. 7B Hon. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner 13 Plaintiff,

14 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 (MRW VERSION 4/19)

16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Check if submitted without material municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL R. 17 modifications to MRW form MOORE, in his official Capacity as 18 Chief of Los Angeles Police Department, LOS ANGELES POLICE 19 DEPARTMENT, a municipal entity, DOE 1-4 inclusive, 20

21 Defendants. 22

24 25 1. INTRODUCTION 26 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 27 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 28 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 1 |}and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 2 || Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 3 || following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 4 || not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 5 || protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 6 || information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 7 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 8 || 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 10 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 12 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 This action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiff is seeking through discovery materials and information 15 that Defendants the City of Los Angeles et al. (“City”) maintains as confidential, 16 video recordings, audio recordings, and information and other administrative iM materials and information currently in the possession of the City and which the City 18 believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 19 other than prosecuting this litigation. 20 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 1 by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 22 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., |! 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), afd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly 24 released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order 25 or pursuant to a court order, if at all. 26 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 27 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 28 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks,

1 paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of 2 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 3 officers referenced in the materials and information. 4 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 5 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 6 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to receive a fair 7 trial. 8 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 9 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 10 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 11 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 12 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 13 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 14 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 15 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 16 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 17 not be part of the public record of this case. 18 Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 19 the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of resolving any 20 disagreements. 21 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 22 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 23 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 24 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 25 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege 26 claims in this section, nor shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order.

27 28 1 |}2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit, entitled /saiah Clifton Gaines v. 3 || City of Los Angeles, et al., CV21-09992-AB-MRW 4 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 5 || of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 7 |Ihow it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 8 || under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good ? Cause Statement. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from 10 the Confidential information; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, abstracts or compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal Confidential information. 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

7 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as

18 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 20 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 51 || among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 09 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 03 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 74 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 25 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 26 2.8 Final Disposition: when this Action has been fully and completely 77 || terminated by way of settlement, dismissal, trial, appeal and/or remand to state court. 28

1 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Isaiah Clifton Gaines v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaiah-clifton-gaines-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.