Liston Grace v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 23, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-03119·Unknown

Opinion

LISTON GRACE, an individual, CASE NO. CV21-03119-JWH (Ex) Hon. John W. Holcomb, Ctrm. 2, George E. Brown Mag. Charles F. Eick, Ctrm. 750, 7th Fl., Roybal Plaintiff, v. [PROPOSED] CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ORDER OF THE PARTIES CHIEF MICHEL MOORE in his official capacity, and DOES 1 TO 10, in their official and personal capacities, Defendant 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS This is a civil action brought by Plaintiff, LISTON GRACE, against Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES and CHIEF MICHEL MOORE, in connection with an incident that occurred on April 8, 2020. In his Complaint for Damages, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: Violation of Civil Rights; Municipal Liability – Unconstitutional Custom, Practice or Policy; Municipal Policy - Inadequate Training/Policy of Inaction; Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights and; Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights. Plaintiff has served a Request to Produce Documents and other tangible items, pursuant to F.R.C.P 34 wherein certain privileges apply, including but not limited to the right to privacy for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Likewise, the City Defendants anticipate seeking information from Plaintiff, including documents, to which the right to privacy applies such as medical records. 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 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 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. Defendants wish to disclose the related officer body worn video footage. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Plaintiff may wish to disclose certain medical records which Plaintiff contends are subject to the right to privacy. See, e.g., Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977); Domingo v. Brennan, 690 F. App’x 928, 930 (9th Cir. 2017). Defendants may also wish to disclose additional evidence to which the right to privacy applies, as well as the official information privilege (Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976.)) 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 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, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 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. 3. SCOPE 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 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. The parties acknowledge that a trial in this matter will be a public trial and nothing in this Protective Order will preclude the introduction of Protected Material as evidence at trial, notwithstanding any evidentiary rulings and/or orders from the trial judge. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items or oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, documents, items or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited.

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

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

Liston Grace v. City of Los Angeles (Liston Grace v. City of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)