Liston Grace v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 23, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-03119
StatusUnknown

This text of Liston Grace v. City of Los Angeles (Liston Grace 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
Liston Grace v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 LISTON GRACE, an individual, CASE NO. CV21-03119-JWH (Ex) Hon. John W. Holcomb, Ctrm. 2, George E. Brown 12 Mag. Charles F. Eick, Ctrm. 750, 7th Fl., Roybal Plaintiff, 13 v. [PROPOSED] 14 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ORDER OF THE PARTIES 15 ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF MICHEL MOORE in his 16 official capacity, and DOES 1 TO 10, in their official and personal capacities, 17 Defendant 18 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 This is a civil action brought by Plaintiff, LISTON GRACE, against Defendants, 21 CITY OF LOS ANGELES and CHIEF MICHEL MOORE, in connection with an 22 incident that occurred on April 8, 2020. In his Complaint for Damages, Plaintiff 23 alleges the following causes of action: Violation of Civil Rights; Municipal Liability – 24 Unconstitutional Custom, Practice or Policy; Municipal Policy - Inadequate 25 Training/Policy of Inaction; Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights and; Conspiracy to 26 Interfere with Civil Rights. 27 Plaintiff has served a Request to Produce Documents and other tangible items, 28 pursuant to F.R.C.P 34 wherein certain privileges apply, including but not limited to 1 the right to privacy for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 2 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Likewise, the 3 City Defendants anticipate seeking information from Plaintiff, including documents, to 4 which the right to privacy applies such as medical records. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 8 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 11 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 12 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 13 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 14 court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 Defendants wish to disclose the related officer body worn video footage. Soto v. 17 City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Plaintiff may wish to disclose 18 certain medical records which Plaintiff contends are subject to the right to privacy. See, 19 e.g., Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977); Domingo v. Brennan, 690 F. App’x 928, 21 930 (9th Cir. 2017). Defendants may also wish to disclose additional evidence to 22 which the right to privacy applies, as well as the official information privilege (Kerr v. 23 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 24 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976.)) 25 2. DEFINITIONS 26 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 27 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 28 information or items under this Order. 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 2 it 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 Cause 4 Statement. 5 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 6 support staff). 7 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 8 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 9 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 11 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 12 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 13 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 14 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 15 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 16 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 17 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 18 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 19 counsel. 20 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 21 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 22 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 23 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 24 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 25 appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 26 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 27 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 28 support staffs). 1 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this Action. 3 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 4 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 5 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 6 their employees and subcontractors. 7 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 8 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 10 from a Producing Party. 11 3. SCOPE 12 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected 13 Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from 14 Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected 15 Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their 16 Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 17 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial 18 judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 19 4. DURATION 20 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 21 imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees 22 otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be 23 deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or 24 without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion 25 of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time 26 limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 27 applicable law. The parties acknowledge that a trial in this matter will be a public trial 28 and nothing in this Protective Order will preclude the introduction of Protected 1 Material as evidence at trial, notwithstanding any evidentiary rulings and/or orders 2 from the trial judge. 3 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 4 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.

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

Related

Whalen v. Roe
429 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Nestor Domingo v. Megan J. Brennan
690 F. App'x 928 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Liston Grace v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liston-grace-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2021.