Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 10, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00259·Unknown

Opinion

LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO ! || Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (SBN 144074) dalekgalipo @yahoo.com Marcel F. Sincich, Esq. (SBN 319508) msincich@ galipolaw, com 21800 Burbank Blvd., Suite 310 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 || Tel: (818) 347-3333 | Fax: (818) 347-4118 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mildred K. O’Linn (State Bar No. 159055) mko@manningllp.com Michael R. Watts (State Bar No. 312210) are Srwanninglip. com g || MANNING & SS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP g || 801 S. Figueroa St, 15 Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3012 Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 Attorneys for Defendants CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LUKE CARLSON; JEANNE -9-70—cev— ZIMMER: and JEEFERY rae No.: 2:20-cv—00259 ODW CARLSON, ( x)

Plaintiffs, [Honorable Otis D. Wright, IT) VS. Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon CITY OF REDONDO BEACH; RYAN CRESPIN; PATRICK KNOX; MARK VALDIVIA; and STIPULATED PROTECTIVE || DOES | through 10, inclusive, ORDER Defendants. [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon]

1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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 13.3, 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. This action involves the officer-involved shooting of Luke Carlson on January 8, 2019. Following the shooting, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s (“LADA”) office conducted an investigation into the shooting. The LADA’s investigative report concerning the shooting contains numerous police reports, witness statements, reports of evidence analysis prepared by the Los Angeles County Crime Lab, and numerous audio and video recordings, among other items (collectively, “LADA Report”). Other law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Defendant City of Redondo Beach, may also have performed some aspects of this investigation. Special protection of these documents from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than the prosecution, defense, and attempted settlement of this materials and information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 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; Local Civil 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit. 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 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 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.

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

Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach (Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)