Luis Enrique Aguilera Angeles v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 25, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-00875·Unknown

Opinion

aVbiunrckewnti tCz@onPtrBerBaGs,B ESs.qC. OBMar No. : 3401 32 vcontreras@PBBGBS.COM GREGORIO BURKWITZ & SU, LLP 100 North First Street, Suite 300 Burbank, California 91502, T: 818.562.5800 F: 818.562.5810 Attorneys for Defendants, and ESPERANZA LOPEZ LUIS ENRIQUE AGUILERA Case No.: 2:23-cv-00875-FMO-MAR ANGELES, an individual; ROSA Assigned to the Honorable: Fernando M. EMELIA CEBALLOS LOPEZ, an Olguin individual; Y.A., a minor, by and through Magistrate Judge: Margo A. Rocconi her guardian ad litem, LUIS [Room 6D] AGUILERA; and Q.A.., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, LUIS STIPULATED PROTECTIVE AGUILERA ORDER1

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; JEANETTE ARZATE, an individual; ANTHONY OKELOLA, an individual; E. LOPEZ, an individual; ERIKA BARRALES, an individual; NORMA DISON, an individual; LISETTE SOLIS, an individual; MARICELA OCHOA, an individual; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT (LAPD), a public entity, Hollenbeck Division, serial number 31010; LAPD OFFICER BRAVO, Hollenbeck Division, serial number 36154; and DOES 1-20 inclusive,

Defendants. 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi’s Procedures. 1.1. 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 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. 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Plaintiffs Y.A., and Q.A., are former dependents of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and the subject of Los Angeles County Superior Court Juvenile Case Nos. 21CCJPOO619A and 21CCJPOO619B (“Juvenile Dependency Court”). Information regarding dependents and information contained in their case files of the juvenile court are highly confidential, private and 827, California Rules of Court 5.552, and other applicable statutes, regulations and laws. Moreover, the Plaintiffs juvenile dependency court records contains highly confidential information of mandated reporters reporting suspected abuse or neglect. Penal Code §§ 11166, 11166.2, 11166.05, and 11167.5. Further, as to release of Plaintiffs juvenile dependency court records, it was ordered by the Court to be subject to a protective order. See Dkt. 58. Between 2021 and 2023, the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department investigated allegations of child sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiffs Y.A., and Q.A. as well as two of their siblings. The investigation included interviews of victims who were abused as children and information about the alleged perpetrator of the crimes who is a non-party and whose privacy rights are also implicated. As such, there may be voluminous sensitive materials including police reports, recorded interviews depicting graphic sexual abuse of minors, and other law enforcement records, which may be protected pursuant to Government Code § 6254(f), Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, 832.8 and 11105, and Evidence Code § 1040. Further, it is possible the parties in this action may seek confidential information relating to individual police officers and as such their privacy rights are also implicated pursuant to Evidence Code § 1043, and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 535. See also Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 653 (C.D. Cal. 2005) and A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 186, 189-90 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Federal States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir.1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 957 (1991). It is the position of the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department that the release of such records cannot be considered absent a protective order and, in some cases, a court order. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Case No.: 2:23-cv-00875-FMO-MAR 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: Attorneys of record in the action and their affiliated attorneys, paralegals, clerical, and secretarial staff employed by such attorneys who are actively involved in the action, and retained by a party, and are not employees of any party. In-House counsel to the undersigned Parties and the paralegal, clerical, and secretarial staff employed by such counsel. Provided, however that each non-lawyer given access to Confidential Materials shall be advised that such Materials are being Order and that they may not be disclosed other than pursuant to its terms; 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 which 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 staff). 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 retrievin

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

Luis Enrique Aguilera Angeles v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

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

Related

Pitchess v. Superior Court
522 P.2d 305 (California Supreme Court, 1974)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Green v. Baca
226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. California, 2005)
A. Farber & Partners Inc. v. Garber
234 F.R.D. 186 (C.D. California, 2006)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)