Julien Sells, an individual, and Jace Sells, a minor, by and through his father Julien Sells v. City of Monterey Park; Monterey Park Police Department; and Does 1-20

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 11, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-00702·Unknown

Opinion

1 Lisa W. Lee (SBN 186495) E-mail: llee@bwslaw.com 2 Marvin C. Cho (SBN 300941) E-mail: mcho@bwslaw.com 3 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, 40th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90071-2942 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 CITY OF MONTEREY PARK and MONTEREY PARK POLICE 7 DEPARTMENT 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 JULIEN SELLS, an individual, and Case No. 2:26-CV-00702-FMO (CTSx) JACE SELLS, a minor, by and through 14 his father JULIEN SELLS, Hon. Fernando M. Olguin 15 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 16 v. 17 CITY OF MONTEREY PARK; MONTEREY PARK POLICE 18 DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 1. GENERAL 23 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 24 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 25 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg’s Procedures. 1 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 2 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 3 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 4 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 5 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 6 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 7 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective 8 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 9 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 10 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 11 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action involves Plaintiffs JULIEN 12 SELLS and JACE SELLS (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants CITY OF MONTEREY 13 PARK and MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT2 (collectively, the “City” 14 or “Defendants”). Plaintiff is seeking materials and information the City maintains as 15 confidential, such as officer body worn video recordings, audio recordings and 16 materials, and other administrative and personnel records which, if they exist, are in 17 the possession of the City which Defendants believe need special protection from 18 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 19 In addition, some materials sought pertain to a confidential criminal investigation, 20 which has not yet concluded, and disclosure of which could jeopardize the ongoing 21 investigation. See Shelley v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 2015 WL 2082370, at *3 (E.D. 22 Cal. May 4, 2015); United States v. Smith, 985 F.Supp.2d 506, 531 (S.D.N.Y.2013); 23 Flagg ex rel. Bond v. City of Detroit, 268 F.R.D. 279, 294 (E.D.Mich.2010); Tuite v. 24 Henry, 181 F.R.D. 175, 179 (D.D.C.1998). See generally Center for Nat. Sec. Studies 25 v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 926 (D.C.Cir.2003); United States v. Valenti, 26

27 2 The MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT is not a separate legal entity, but instead a department within the City of Monterey Park. 1 987 F.2d 708, 714 (11th Cir.1993); Coughlin v. Lee, 946 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th 2 Cir.1991); Swanner v. United States, 406 F.2d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1969). As it pertains 3 to these materials, they will be designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only,” and shall only 4 be viewed by the attorney and treated in accordance with the terms of this Order. 5 Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information 6 sought by Plaintiffs is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter 7 alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 8 N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City 9 has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above. These 10 materials and information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary 11 action against Monterey Park Police Department (“MPPD”) officers and have been 12 used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings where the officers’ conduct was 13 considered to be contrary to MPPD policy. 14 Defendants contend that absent a protective order delineating the 15 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 16 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 17 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well 18 as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical 19 and legal harm on the part of the MPPD officers referenced in the materials and 20 information. 21 Defendants also contend that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 22 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 23 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendants 24 herein to receive a fair trial. 25 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 26 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 27 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 1 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 2 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 3 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 4 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 5 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 6 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. This also includes (1) any 7 information copied or extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, 8 excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any 9 testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal Confidential information. 10 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Action: Julien Sells, et al. v. City of Monterey Park, et al., United 13 States District Court Case No. 2:26-CV-00702-FMO (AGRx). 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 15 designation of information or items under this Order. 16 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 the Good Cause Statement. This also includes (1) any information copied or 20 extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or 21 compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 22 presentations that might reveal Confidential information.

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

Julien Sells, an individual, and Jace Sells, a minor, by and through his father Julien Sells v. City of Monterey Park; Monterey Park Police Department; and Does 1-20, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Julien Sells, an individual, and Jace Sells, a minor, by and through his father Julien Sells v. City of Monterey Park; Monterey Park Police Department; and Does 1-20 (Julien Sells, an individual, and Jace Sells, a minor, by and through his father Julien Sells v. City of Monterey Park; Monterey Park Police Department; and Does 1-20) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related