L.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson, by her mother and guardian ad litem Mia Tafoya, K.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 9, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-03751
StatusUnknown

This text of L.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson, by her mother and guardian ad litem Mia Tafoya, K.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson v. United States (L.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson, by her mother and guardian ad litem Mia Tafoya, K.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson v. United States) 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
L.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson, by her mother and guardian ad litem Mia Tafoya, K.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson v. United States, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

11 THE SEHAT LAW FIRM, PLC Nicholas Brosamle, Esq. (SBN 356492) 22 Cameron Sehat, Esq. (SBN: 256535) Jeffrey Mikel, Esq (SBN: 350671) 33 5100 Campus Dr., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 44 Telephone: (949) 825-5200 Facsimile: (949) 313-5001 55 Cameron@sehatlaw.com

n.brosamle@sehatlaw.com 66 j.mikel@sehatlaw.com

77 Attorney for Plaintiffs, L.J., K.J., Raya Johnson-Kelly and Chris Kelly 88

99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1100 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1111 L.J. a minor, individually and as Case No: 2:25-cv-03751 MRA (Ex) 1122 personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson, by her mother and Hon. Monica Ramirez Almadani 1133 guardian ad litem Mia Tafoya, K.J. a 1144 minor, individually and as personal STIPULATED PROTECTIVE representative of the Estate of Rhaquan ORDER 1155 Johnson, by her mother and guardian 1166 ad litem Mia Tafoya, Raya Johnson- Kelly individually, Chris Kelly, 1177 individually, 1188 Plaintiffs, 1199 vs. 2200

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a 2211 government entity, Michael Meiser, 2222 and DOES 1-10 inclusive

2233 Defendants. 2244

1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2266 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 2277 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 11 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 22 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 33 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 44 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 55 or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 66 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 77 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties 88 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 99 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 1100 Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 1111 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file 1122 material under seal. The parties must also comply with any pertinent orders from 1133 District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. 1144

1155 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 1166 The Parties represent that pre-trial discovery in this case is likely to include 1177 the production of information and/or documents that are confidential and/or 1188 privileged, including the production of peace officer personnel file information 1199 and/or documents which the Parties agree includes: (1) Personal data, including 2200 marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home 2211 addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Police officer employee 2222 personnel file; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; (5) Evidence 2233 gathered by law enforcement as part of an ongoing criminal investigation (6) 2244 Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in 2255 which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and 2266 pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties 2277 including compelled statements by peace officers unless specifically denoted as 11 “not confidential” pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7; (7) internal investigative 22 files and documents; (8) email and written correspondence records; (8) 33 confidential information with financial records; (9) video footage and/or 44 photographs related to the incident; (10) psychological and medical notes, 55 evaluations, reports, and treatment plans; and (11) policies and procedures that are 66 kept from the public in the ordinary course of business, as well as other 77 information that is not generally available to the public and Defendants contend is 88 subject to the Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Sanchez v. City 99 of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal. 1990); see also Kerr v. United 1100 States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 1111 394 (1976). 1122 Testimony taken at a deposition may be designated as Confidential by making 1133 a statement to that effect on the record at the deposition. Arrangements shall be made 1144 with the court reporter transcribing the deposition to separately bind such portions 1155 of the transcript containing information designated as Confidential, and to label such 1166 portions appropriately. Confidential photographs, video or audio footage obtained 1177 through the course of discovery or otherwise may not be used for any purpose other 1188 than litigating this lawsuit. The parties agree to refrain from directly or indirectly 1199 disclosing or publicly disseminating confidential deposition testimony, and/or 2200 photographs, video or audio footage obtained through the course of discovery or 2211 otherwise, specifically including, but not limited to, dissemination via billboard 2222 advertisements, print and online media organizations, or any other internet posting 2233 or social media. If any party intends to use such confidential materials for any 2244 purpose other than litigating this lawsuit, the party seeking public disclosure must 2255 first seek approval from the Court. 2266 The incident at issue in this action involves events that include the alleged 2277 illicit smuggling of narcotics into the Pitchess Detention Center at the North 11 County Correctional Facility, operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 22 Department. Defendant Meiser and at least 18 other individuals have been 33 indicted pursuant to a joint and ongoing investigation by the Los Angeles County 44 Sheriff’s Department and the FBI’s San Gabriel Valley Safe Streets Task Force in 55 regards to drug smuggling within the County jail system. Discovery may require 66 the production of certain Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s 77 investigative findings and materials that are privileged and confidential during the 88 pendency of the criminal prosecution. This information and materials are not 99 available to the public and public disclosure at this time could risk compromising 1100 the underlying criminal prosecution, and/or impeding further investigation. In 1111 addition to the aforesaid investigative findings and materials, Peace officer 1122 personnel file information and/or documents and security-sensitive policies and 1133 procedures are hereinafter referred to as "Confidential Information". 1144 The parties contend that that public disclosure of such material poses a 1155 substantial risk and jeopardy to the underlying criminal prosecution. Finally, the 1166 parties contend that the benefit of public disclosure of Confidential Information is 1177 minimal while the potential disadvantages are great. 1188 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ 1199 representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential 2200 records, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2211 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 2222 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 2233 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in connection with 2244 this action, to address their handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and 2255 to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 2266 matter.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
L.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson, by her mother and guardian ad litem Mia Tafoya, K.J. a minor, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Rhaquan Johnson v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lj-a-minor-individually-and-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-cacd-2026.