Joseph Ward-Wallace v. Los Angeles Police Department; City of Los Angeles; Joshua Sportiello; Edward Pedroza

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 20, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-03662
StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph Ward-Wallace v. Los Angeles Police Department; City of Los Angeles; Joshua Sportiello; Edward Pedroza (Joseph Ward-Wallace v. Los Angeles Police Department; City of Los Angeles; Joshua Sportiello; Edward Pedroza) 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 Ward-Wallace v. Los Angeles Police Department; City of Los Angeles; Joshua Sportiello; Edward Pedroza, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 JOSEPH WARD-WALLACE, an CASE NO. 2:25-cv-03662-WLH-MAR individual Hon. John F. Walter – Ctrm. 7A 12 Hon. Margo A. Rocconi – Ctrm. 790 13 Plaintiff(s), STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 v. ORDER

15 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, public entity; CITY 16 OF LOS ANGELES, a public enity; JOSHUA SPORTIELLO, an individual; 17 EDWARD PEDROZA, an individual,

18 Defendant(s).

19 20 21 1. INTRODUCTION 22 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 24 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 25 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 26 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 27 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 1 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 2 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 3 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 4 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 6 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action involves employees of the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) which 9 include members of the City’s Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) which include 10 at least one named defendant (collectively “Defendants”). The nature of the incident that 11 gives rise to Plaintiff’s suit and Plaintiff’s claims and allegations, will result in discovery 12 production that includes: police reports and evidence; investigation reports and evidence; 13 peace officer personnel materials; information implicating the privacy rights of third 14 parties (i.e., bystander witnesses, emergency personnel information); and other private 15 and confidential materials for which require special protection from public disclosure. 16 Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant(s) 17 employer/the City maintains as confidential such as personnel files of the police and/or 18 sworn officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video 19 recordings, audio recordings, photographs, and information and other administrative 20 materials and information currently in the possession of the City and which Defendants’ 21 employer believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 22 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information 23 contained in the personnel files of the police and/or sworn officers involved in the subject 24 incident, which are maintained as strictly confidential and which Defendants believe need 25 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 26 prosecuting this litigation. 27 Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 1 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 2 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Defendants have not publicly 3 released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order or 4 pursuant to a court order, if at all. The personnel materials and information are of the type 5 that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against the City’s respective employees, 6 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the employee conduct 7 was considered to be contrary to policy. 8 Defendants contend that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 9 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 10 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 11 paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of 12 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the City’s 13 employees referenced in the materials and information. 14 Defendants also contend that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 15 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 16 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of Defendants herein to receive a 17 fair trial. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 19 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 20 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 21 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 22 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 23 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 24 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 25 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 26 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 27 public record of this case. 1 Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to Defendants’ contentions as 2 set forth above. Nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall resolve the 3 parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and claimed 4 privileges set forth above. However, Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a 5 Protective Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties while streamlining 6 the process of resolving any disagreements. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that, absent 7 this Stipulation and its associated Protective Order, the parties’ respective privilege 8 interests may be impaired or harmed, and that this Stipulation and its associated 9 Protective Order may avoid such harm by permitting the parties to facilitate discovery 10 with reduced risk that privileged and/or sensitive/confidential information will become 11 matters of public record. 12 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 13 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 14 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 15 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be construed 16 as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege claims in 17 this section. 18 19 2. DEFINITIONS 20 2.1 Action: Ward-Wallace v. City of Los Angeles, et al., case no. 2:25-cv-03662- 21 WLH-MAR. 22 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 23 information or items under this Order. 24 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 25 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 27 Statement. 1 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 2 support staff).

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

Related

Thomas v. United States
2 F.2d 190 (D.C. Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joseph Ward-Wallace v. Los Angeles Police Department; City of Los Angeles; Joshua Sportiello; Edward Pedroza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-ward-wallace-v-los-angeles-police-department-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.