La Drea Johnson v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 22, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00475
StatusUnknown

This text of La Drea Johnson v. City of Los Angeles (La Drea Johnson v. 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
La Drea Johnson v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 LA DREA JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00475-DDP-AJR

Honorable Dean D. Pregerson 12 Plaintiff, Honorable A. Joel Richlin 13 v.

[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; 15 VICTOR PORCAYO, Sergeant I; SON NGUYEN, Police Officer II; RENEE 16 MORALES, Police Officer I; and DOES 1 through 10, 17 Defendants, 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 1. GENERAL 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 3 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 5 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 6 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 8 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 9 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 10 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set 11 forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 12 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 13 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 14 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 16 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“CITY) and individual sworn police 17 officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) on one side; and on the other, 18 Plaintiffs who claim damages from the City and LAPD Officers. 19 As such, Plaintiff may seek materials and information that the City maintains as 20 confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved in the incident, video 21 recordings (including Body-Worn Video recordings and Digital In-Car Video 22 recordings), audio recordings, and other administrative materials and information 23 currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes needs special 24 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 25 this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information contained in the personnel files 26 of the Police Officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains as 27 strictly confidential and which the City believes needs special protection from public 1 The City asserts that the confidentiality of materials and information sought by 2 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law as evidenced by, inter alia, 3 California Penal Code section 832.7, California Evidence Code section 1043 et. seq. 4 and Kerr v. United States District Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), 5 aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 6 1990); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The City has not and does 7 not publicly release the materials and information referenced above except under a 8 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 9 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD officers 10 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where officers’ conduct was 11 considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 12 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of 13 nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and 14 undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 15 paralegals, and expert witnesses involved in the case, as well as the corollary risk of 16 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 17 officers referenced in the materials and information. 18 Defendants also seek discovery of various information relating to Plaintiff’s 19 damages claims, including employment information, housing information, financial 20 information, and confidential medical records that may be personal, private, and 21 potentially embarrassing if unnecessarily disseminated; thus, Plaintiff contends such 22 information should not be disseminated beyond this litigation. 23 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolute 24 of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 25 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 26 permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 27 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of litigation, and serve the ends of 1 confidential for tactical reasons and nothing will be designated without a good faith belief 2 that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 3 why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 4 Plaintiff is in possession of Body-Worn Video (“BWV”) and was provide a copy 5 through the Los Angeles Police Department’s AXON evidence.com James Sumbi (Badge 6 ID: N2907) on February 17, 2023. Therefore, there is no good cause for the BWV to be 7 under the protective order since it was issued by the Los Angeles Police Department. 8 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: Johnson v. City of Los Angeles et. al., 2:24-cv-00475-DDP-AJR 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 12 information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 14 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 16 Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 23 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 24 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 25 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 27 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 1 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 2 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 3 counsel. 4 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 5 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 6 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 7 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 8 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 9 appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
La Drea Johnson v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/la-drea-johnson-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.