Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 13, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-04014·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

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

Defendants.

1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 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 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 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 arises from allegations of misconduct by peace officers employed by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) in conducting a search and arrest of Plaintiff Leticia Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) on November 1, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that this misconduct violated her constitutional rights. Prior to this lawsuit, Plaintiff made complaints to LASD, which launched an internal investigation by the LASD Internal Criminal Investigation Bureau (“ICIB”). The investigatory materials generated by the ICIB are kept and maintained in confidence by the LASD and also provided to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Accordingly, this action will necessarily involve the disclosure of confidential and privileged information regarding peace officers employed by LASD, which may include, but is not limited to, the contents contained in the personnel files of LASD personnel, such as personal contact information, disciplinary records, and information derived from internal LASD investigations such as an investigation by the ICIB. Such information concerning peace officers employed by LASD is protected from disclosure by the constitutional and privacy rights of the peace officers, LASD’s official information and deliberative process privileges, and California statutory law governing the disclosure of peace officer personnel records, such as California Penal Code § 832.5 and California Evidence Code § 1043(a). In addition, discovery in this case may also subsume the privacy interests of third parties whose constitutional and privacy interests may need protection given the ongoing nature of 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, bearing the case name of Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04014-R (SKx). 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 4. DURATION Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as CONFIDENTIAL or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

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

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

Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles (Leticia Sanchez v. County of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)