Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 13, 2019
Docket2:19-cv-04014
StatusUnknown

This text of Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles (Leticia Sanchez v. County 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
Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 Thomas C. Hurrell, State Bar No. 119876 E-Mail: thurrell@hurrellcantrall.com 2 John V. McNulty, State Bar No. 290834 E-Mail: jmcnulty@hurrellcantrall.com 3 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1300 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 426-2000 5 Facsimile: (213) 426-2020

6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT and DEPUTY DEANNA BALLESTEROS 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 10

11 LETICIA SANCHEZ, CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-04014-R (SKx) 12 Plaintiff, [Assigned to Hon. R. Gary Klausner, 13 Courtroom “850” ] v. 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 DEANNA BALLESTEROS, an ORDER individual deputy with the COUNTY 16 OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and DOES 1 through 17 20, Inclusive,

18 Defendants.

20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 1 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 2 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 3 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 4 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 5 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 6 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 8 This action arises from allegations of misconduct by peace officers employed 9 by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) in conducting a search and 10 arrest of Plaintiff Leticia Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) on November 1, 2017. Plaintiff 11 alleges that this misconduct violated her constitutional rights. Prior to this lawsuit, 12 Plaintiff made complaints to LASD, which launched an internal investigation by the 13 LASD Internal Criminal Investigation Bureau (“ICIB”). The investigatory materials 14 generated by the ICIB are kept and maintained in confidence by the LASD and also 15 provided to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Accordingly, this 16 action will necessarily involve the disclosure of confidential and privileged 17 information regarding peace officers employed by LASD, which may include, but is 18 not limited to, the contents contained in the personnel files of LASD personnel, such 19 as personal contact information, disciplinary records, and information derived from 20 internal LASD investigations such as an investigation by the ICIB. Such 21 information concerning peace officers employed by LASD is protected from 22 disclosure by the constitutional and privacy rights of the peace officers, LASD’s 23 official information and deliberative process privileges, and California statutory law 24 governing the disclosure of peace officer personnel records, such as California 25 Penal Code § 832.5 and California Evidence Code § 1043(a). In addition, discovery 26 in this case may also subsume the privacy interests of third parties whose 27 constitutional and privacy interests may need protection given the ongoing nature of 1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 3 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 5 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 6 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 7 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 8 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 9 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 10 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, bearing the case name of Leticia 14 Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04014-R (SKx). 15 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items under this Order. 17 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 18 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 20 the Good Cause Statement. 21 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 22 their support staff). 23 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 24 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 25 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 26 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 27 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 1 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 3 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 4 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 5 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 6 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 7 counsel. 8 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 9 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 10 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 11 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 12 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 13 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 14 2.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 15 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 16 support staffs). 17 2.12 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 18 Discovery Material in this Action. 19 2.13 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support 20 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 21 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 22 and their employees and subcontractors. 23 2.14 Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 24 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.15 Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 26 Material from a Producing Party. 27 1 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 2 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 3 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 4 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 5 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 6 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 7 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 8 9 4.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leticia-sanchez-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2019.