Kendrick Sampson v. The City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 7, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-03346
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 Susan E. Coleman (SBN 171832) E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com 2 Lisa W. Lee (SBN 186495) E-mail: llee@bwslaw.com 3 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 4 Los Angeles, California 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF 7 MICHEL MOORE, OFFICER JERITT SEVERNS, OFFICER ALLAN SALAZAR, OFFICER RUBEN 8 RODRIGUEZ, OFFICER DAVID MARTIN, and OFFICER OSCAR ARIAS 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

13 KENDRICK SAMPSON Case No. 2:22-cv-03346-JAK-ADS 14 Plaintiff, Hon. John A. Kronstadt 15 Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth v. 16 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF MICHEL 18 MOORE, individually, as a supervisor, and in his official capacity 19 as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Officer JERITT 20 SEVERNS, Officer ALLAN SALAZAR, Officer OSCAR ARIAS, 21 Officer RUBEN RODRIGUEZ, Officer DAVID MARTIN and DOES 22 1 through 10, inclusive,

23 Defendants.

24 25

27 1 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 6 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 7 8 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 9 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 10 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 11 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 12 in Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 13 them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth 14 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 15 party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 16 17 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 This action involves Plaintiff Kendrick Sampson (“Plaintiff”) and the City of Los 19 Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief Michel Moore, Sgt. Jeritt Severns, 20 Officer Allan Salazar, Officer Oscar Arias, Officer Ruben Rodriguez, and Officer David 21 Martin (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that 22 Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as Internal Affairs 23 materials and information, internal use of force investigation reports, video recordings, 24 25 audio recordings, and materials, personnel records and other administrative materials 26 and information currently in the possession of the City which Defendants believe need 27 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 1 Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 2 by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 3 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 4 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly 5 released the materials and information referenced above. These materials and 6 information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary action against 7 8 LAPD officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the 9 officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 10 Defendants contend that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 11 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 12 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 13 paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of 14 embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical and legal harm on the part 15 of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. 16 17 Defendants also contend that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 18 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 19 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendants herein to receive 20 a fair trial. 21 Plaintiff believes, among other personal information and records, Defendants will 22 seek, and Plaintiff will produce discovery material in this action that contains medical 23 records and other documents and records protected by federal and state constitutional 24 25 and statutory right to privacy laws, including but not limited to, the Health Insurance 26 Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), California Civil Code section 1798 et seq., 27 and California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5328. Plaintiff believes unfettered 1 state laws and result in the unnecessary dissemination of Plaintiff’s personal and private 2 physical and mental health information, as well as other personal information. Plaintiff 3 further believes such dissemination could result in unnecessary and unwarranted 4 embarrassment to Plaintiff and the infliction of unnecessary and unwarranted emotional 5 distress. The protective order will allow for the disclosure and for Defendants’ use of the 6 information without subjecting Plaintiff to unnecessary dissemination of personal and 7 8 otherwise protected materials. 9 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 10 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 11 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 12 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 13 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 14 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 15 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 16 17 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 18 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 19 public record of this case. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from 20 the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of 21 Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that 22 might reveal Confidential information. 23

24 25 III. DEFINITIONS 26 A. Action: This pending federal law suit. 27 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 1 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it 2 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 3 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 4 Cause Statement. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from 5 the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of 6 Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations 7 8 that might reveal Confidential information. 9 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 10 support staff). 11 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 12 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 F.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kendrick Sampson v. The City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-sampson-v-the-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.