Joseph Gatt v. George Gascon

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 16, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-02740
StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph Gatt v. George Gascon (Joseph Gatt v. George Gascon) 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
Joseph Gatt v. George Gascon, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

11 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP RONALD L. CHENG (SBN 138892) 22 Ronald.Cheng@pillsburylaw.com PHILIP HE (SBN 322811) 33 Philip.He@pillsburylaw.com 725 South Figueroa Street, 36th Floor 44 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524 Telephone: 213.488.7100 55 Facsimile: 213.629.1033

66 Attorneys for Defendants LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 77 GEORGE GASCÓN, and ANGELA BRUNSON 88

99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1100 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1111

1122 JOSEPH GATT, Case No. 2:24-cv-02740-FLA-AGR

1133 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND 1144 PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: vs. DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL 1155 GEORGE GASCÓN, INFORMATION 1166 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1177 ANGELA BRUNSON, DENOS AMARANTOS, 1188 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and 1199 DOES 1-10, Defendants. 2200 2211 2222

2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 11 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 33 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 44 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting and/or defending this litigation 55 may be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff Joseph Gatt (“Plaintiff” or “Gatt”) and 66 Defendants George Gascón, Los Angeles County, Angela Brunson, City of Los 77 Angeles, and Denos Amarantos (collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants 88 are collectively referred to as the Parties and separately referred to as a Party) hereby 99 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 1100 The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 1111 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 1122 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 1133 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties further 1144 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 1155 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Central District Civil 1166 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 1177 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1188 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 1199 This action is likely to involve personally identifiable information, personally 2200 sensitive information, including personnel files, material generated during criminal 2211 investigations, personal communications involving minors, sexually explicit 2222 communications, and other information for which special protection from public 2233 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution and/or defense of this 2244 Action is warranted. Such confidential information, including confidential personal and 2255 financial information, information regarding confidential criminal investigations, or 2266 other confidential information (including information implicating privacy rights of the 2277 Parties and third parties), is information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, 11 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 22 In addition, this action involves materials and information that Defendant the 33 City of Los Angeles et al. (“City”) claims it maintains as confidential, such as 44 personnel files of the police officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs 55 materials and information, video recordings (including Body-Worn Video recordings 66 and Digital In-Car Video recordings), audio recordings, and information and other 77 administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City and 88 which the City believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use 99 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation, as well as information contained 1100 in the personnel files of the police officers involved in the subject incident, which the 1111 City claims it maintains as strictly confidential and which the City believes need 1122 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 1133 prosecuting this litigation. 1144 The City claims that the confidentiality of the materials and information at issue 1155 here is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California 1166 Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 1177 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City claims that it has not 1188 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 1199 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. The City also claims that these 2200 materials and information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary 2211 action against Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as 2222 evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be 2233 contrary to LAPD policy. 2244 The City claims that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of 2255 nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 2266 and undue disclosure, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and 2277 professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials 11 The City also claims that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 22 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 33 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to receive a fair 44 trial. 55 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 66 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 77 information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the Parties are 88 permitted reasonable necessary use of such material in preparation for and in the 99 conduct of trial, to address the handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and 1100 to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 1111 matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as 1122 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 1133 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 1144 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 1155 2. DEFINITIONS 1166 2.1 Action: This action, Joseph Gatt v. George Gascón, et al., Case No. 2:24- 1177 cv-02740-FLA-AGR (U.S. Dist. Court, C.D. Cal.). 1188 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 1199 of information or items under this Order. 2200 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 2211 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 2222 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 2233 Statement. 2244 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 2255 Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 2266 things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 2277 specified above in the Good Cause Statement, and that the Designating Party believes 11 information of a high degree of sensitivity that, if disclosed to a Party, could result in 22 significant harm to the designating Party or a third party.

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

Related

In re Varga
511 F.2d 1175 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joseph Gatt v. George Gascon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-gatt-v-george-gascon-cacd-2024.