Kendrick Sampson v. The City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 7, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-03346·Unknown

Opinion

Susan E. Coleman (SBN 171832) E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com Lisa W. Lee (SBN 186495) E-mail: llee@bwslaw.com 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 Attorneys for Defendants ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF OFFICER ALLAN SALAZAR, OFFICER RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, OFFICER DAVID MARTIN, and OFFICER OSCAR ARIAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENDRICK SAMPSON Case No. 2:22-cv-03346-JAK-ADS Plaintiff, Hon. John A. Kronstadt Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, PROTECTIVE ORDER DEPARTMENT, CHIEF MICHEL MOORE, individually, as a supervisor, and in his official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Officer JERITT SEVERNS, Officer ALLAN SALAZAR, Officer OSCAR ARIAS, Officer RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, Officer DAVID MARTIN and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, 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 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. This action involves Plaintiff Kendrick Sampson (“Plaintiff”) and the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief Michel Moore, Sgt. Jeritt Severns, Officer Allan Salazar, Officer Oscar Arias, Officer Ruben Rodriguez, and Officer David Martin (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as Internal Affairs materials and information, internal use of force investigation reports, video recordings, audio recordings, and materials, personnel records and other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City which Defendants believe need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 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), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above. These materials and information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. Defendants contend that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. Defendants also contend that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendants herein to receive a fair trial. Plaintiff believes, among other personal information and records, Defendants will seek, and Plaintiff will produce discovery material in this action that contains medical records and other documents and records protected by federal and state constitutional and statutory right to privacy laws, including but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), California Civil Code section 1798 et seq., and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5328. Plaintiff believes unfettered state laws and result in the unnecessary dissemination of Plaintiff’s personal and private physical and mental health information, as well as other personal information. Plaintiff further believes such dissemination could result in unnecessary and unwarranted embarrassment to Plaintiff and the infliction of unnecessary and unwarranted emotional distress. The protective order will allow for the disclosure and for Defendants’ use of the information without subjecting Plaintiff to unnecessary dissemination of personal and otherwise protected materials. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal Confidential information.

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

Kendrick Sampson v. The City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Kendrick Sampson v. The City of Los Angeles (Kendrick Sampson v. The City of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hooper-Mankin Co. v. Matthew Addy Co.
4 F.2d 187 (Sixth Circuit, 1925)
Commonwealth v. Keystone Bridge Co.
27 A. 1 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)