Luis Enrique Aguilera Angeles v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 25, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-00875
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

2 aVbiunrckewnti tCz@onPtrBerBaGs,B ESs.qC. OBMar No. : 3401 32 vcontreras@PBBGBS.COM 3 PETERSON BRADFORD BURKWITZ GREGORIO BURKWITZ & SU, LLP 4 100 North First Street, Suite 300 Burbank, California 91502, 5 T: 818.562.5800 F: 818.562.5810 6 Attorneys for Defendants, 7 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, JEANNETE ARZATE, ANTHONY OKELOLA, and ESPERANZA LOPEZ 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LUIS ENRIQUE AGUILERA Case No.: 2:23-cv-00875-FMO-MAR 12 ANGELES, an individual; ROSA Assigned to the Honorable: Fernando M. EMELIA CEBALLOS LOPEZ, an Olguin 13 individual; Y.A., a minor, by and through Magistrate Judge: Margo A. Rocconi her guardian ad litem, LUIS [Room 6D] 14 AGUILERA; and Q.A.., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, LUIS STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 AGUILERA ORDER1

16 Plaintiffs,

17 vs.

18 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; JEANETTE ARZATE, an individual; 19 ANTHONY OKELOLA, an individual; E. LOPEZ, an individual; ERIKA 20 BARRALES, an individual; NORMA DISON, an individual; LISETTE SOLIS, 21 an individual; MARICELA OCHOA, an individual; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 22 LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD), a public entity, 23 LAPD OFFICER RAMIREZ, Hollenbeck Division, serial number 24 31010; LAPD OFFICER BRAVO, Hollenbeck Division, serial number 25 36154; and DOES 1-20 inclusive,

26 Defendants. 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided 28 under Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi’s Procedures. 2 1.1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 5 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 6 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 7 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 8 9 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 10 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 11 12 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 13 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 14 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 15 16 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 17 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 18 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 19 20 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 21 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 22 Plaintiffs Y.A., and Q.A., are former dependents of the Superior Court of the 23 24 State of California, County of Los Angeles, and the subject of Los Angeles County 25 Superior Court Juvenile Case Nos. 21CCJPOO619A and 21CCJPOO619B 26 (“Juvenile Dependency Court”). Information regarding dependents and information 27 28 contained in their case files of the juvenile court are highly confidential, private and 2 827, California Rules of Court 5.552, and other applicable statutes, regulations and 3 laws. Moreover, the Plaintiffs juvenile dependency court records contains highly 4 5 confidential information of mandated reporters reporting suspected abuse or neglect. 6 Penal Code §§ 11166, 11166.2, 11166.05, and 11167.5. Further, as to release of 7 Plaintiffs juvenile dependency court records, it was ordered by the Court to be 8 9 subject to a protective order. See Dkt. 58. 10 Between 2021 and 2023, the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police 11 12 Department investigated allegations of child sexual abuse perpetrated against 13 Plaintiffs Y.A., and Q.A. as well as two of their siblings. The investigation included 14 interviews of victims who were abused as children and information about the alleged 15 16 perpetrator of the crimes who is a non-party and whose privacy rights are also 17 implicated. As such, there may be voluminous sensitive materials including police 18 reports, recorded interviews depicting graphic sexual abuse of minors, and other law 19 20 enforcement records, which may be protected pursuant to Government Code § 21 6254(f), Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, 832.8 and 11105, and Evidence Code § 1040. 22 Further, it is possible the parties in this action may seek confidential information 23 24 relating to individual police officers and as such their privacy rights are also 25 implicated pursuant to Evidence Code § 1043, and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 26 11 Cal.3d 531, 535. See also Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 653 (C.D. Cal. 2005) 27 28 and A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 186, 189-90 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Federal 2 States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th 3 Cir.1975), aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 4 5 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 957 (1991). It is the position of the City 6 of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department that the release of such 7 records cannot be considered absent a protective order and, in some cases, a court 8 9 order. 10 2. DEFINITIONS 11 12 2.1 Action: Case No.: 2:23-cv-00875-FMO-MAR 13 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 14 of information or items under this Order. 15 16 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 19 20 Good Cause Statement. 21 2.4 Counsel: Attorneys of record in the action and their affiliated attorneys, 22 paralegals, clerical, and secretarial staff employed by such attorneys who are actively 23 24 involved in the action, and retained by a party, and are not employees of any party. 25 In-House counsel to the undersigned Parties and the paralegal, clerical, and 26 secretarial staff employed by such counsel. Provided, however that each non-lawyer 27 28 given access to Confidential Materials shall be advised that such Materials are being 2 Order and that they may not be disclosed other than pursuant to its terms; Outside 3 Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 4 5 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 6 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 7 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 9 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 10 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 11 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 16 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 17 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 18 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 19 20 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 21 counsel. 22 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 23 24 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Luis Enrique Aguilera Angeles v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luis-enrique-aguilera-angeles-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.