Jane D.M. Doe v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 4, 2022
Docket2:20-cv-03218
StatusUnknown

This text of Jane D.M. Doe v. County of Los Angeles (Jane D.M. Doe v. County 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
Jane D.M. Doe v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-03218-DDP-JPR Document 57 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:403

1 LUIS A. CARRILLO, State Bar Number 70398 MICHAEL S. CARRILLO, State Bar Number 258878 2 CARRILLO LAW FIRM, LLP 3 1499 Huntington Drive, Suite 402 South Pasadena, California 91030 4 Telephone: (626) 799-9375 5 Facsimile: (626) 799-9380 NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JANE D.M. DOE, a minor, by and through CASE NO.: 2:20-CV-03218-DDP-JPRx her Gaurdian ad Litem, Ivette Rodriguez, Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, Crtm. 9C, 9th Flr. 12 Hon. Mag. Jean P. Rosenbluth, Crtm. 690, 6th Flr. Plaintiff, 13

14 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 20 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 23 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 24 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 25 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 27 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 28 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the

1 Case 2:20-cv-03218-DDP-JPR Document 57 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:404

1 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3 2 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 3 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 4 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to 5 file material under seal. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of 6 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 7 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 8 may be warranted. 9 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 This action involves the County of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angeles 11 County Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that 12 Defendant, the County of Los Angeles, (“County”) maintains as confidential, such as 13 information that may be within the personnel files of the deputy sheriffs involved in this 14 incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, audio recordings, 15 photographs, Force Investigation materials and information and other administrative 16 materials and information currently in the possession of the County and which the 17 County believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 18 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff is also seeking official 19 information contained in the personnel files of the deputy sheriffs involved in the 20 subject incident, which the County maintains as strictly confidential and which the 21 County believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 22 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 23 The County asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information 24 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 25 by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 26 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The County has 27 not publicly released certain information referenced above except under protective 28 order, as required by law, or pursuant to a court order, if at all.

2 Case 2:20-cv-03218-DDP-JPR Document 57 Filed 02/04/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:405

1 The County contends that absent a protective order delineating the 2 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk 3 of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, 4 law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary 5 risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the 6 LASD deputies referenced in the materials and information. 7 The County also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 8 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 9 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the County herein to receive a 10 fair trial. 11 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 12 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 13 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 14 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 15 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 16 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 17 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 18 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 19 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 20 not be part of the public record of this case. 21 Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to the County’s contentions 22 stated herein, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall resolve the 23 parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and claimed 24 privileges set forth above. However, Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a 25 Protective Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties while 26 streamlining the process of resolving any disagreements. 27 The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for 28 protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy photographs,

3 Case 2:20-cv-03218-DDP-JPR Document 57 Filed 02/04/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:406

1 because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of these sensitive interests, a 2 Court Order should address these documents rather than a private agreement between 3 the parties. 4 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 5 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 6 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 7 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 8 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege 9 claims in this section, nor shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. 10 3. DEFINITIONS 11 3.1 Action: Jane D.M. Doe v. County of Los Angeles, et al, Case No. 2:20- 12 CV-03218-DDP-JPRx 13 3.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation 14 of information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 15 3.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 16 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 17 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 18 Statement.

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

Related

Caperton v. Schmidt
26 Cal. 479 (California Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jane D.M. Doe v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-dm-doe-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2022.