Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 10, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00259
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO ! || Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (SBN 144074) dalekgalipo @yahoo.com 2 ||Marcel F. Sincich, Esq. (SBN 319508) msincich@ galipolaw, com 3 ||21800 Burbank Blvd., Suite 310 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 4 || Tel: (818) 347-3333 | Fax: (818) 347-4118 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 || Mildred K. O’Linn (State Bar No. 159055) mko@manningllp.com 7 || 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 10 || Telephone: (213) 624-6900 Facsimile: (213) 624-6999 Attorneys for Defendants 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 LUKE CARLSON; JEANNE -9-70—cev— 16 || ZIMMER: and JEEFERY rae No.: 2:20-cv—00259 ODW CARLSON, ( x)

18 Plaintiffs, [Honorable Otis D. Wright, IT) VS. Magistrate Judge Alexander F. 19 MacKinnon CITY OF REDONDO BEACH; 20 || RYAN CRESPIN; PATRICK KNOX; MARK VALDIVIA; and STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 21 || DOES | through 10, inclusive, ORDER 22 Defendants. 23 [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge Alexander F. 24 MacKinnon] 25 26 27 28

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve 3 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 5 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 6 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 7 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 8 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 9 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 10 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 11 principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3, below, 12 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 13 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 14 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 15 from the court to file material under seal. 16 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 This action involves the officer-involved shooting of Luke Carlson on 18 January 8, 2019. Following the shooting, the Los Angeles County District 19 Attorney’s (“LADA”) office conducted an investigation into the shooting. The 20 LADA’s investigative report concerning the shooting contains numerous police 21 reports, witness statements, reports of evidence analysis prepared by the Los 22 Angeles County Crime Lab, and numerous audio and video recordings, among 23 other items (collectively, “LADA Report”). Other law enforcement agencies, 24 including the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Defendant City of 25 Redondo Beach, may also have performed some aspects of this investigation. 26 Special protection of these documents from public disclosure and from use for any 27 purpose other than the prosecution, defense, and attempted settlement of this 1 materials and information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the 2 public, may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 3 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 4 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 5 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 6 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 7 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 8 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 9 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 10 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 11 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that 12 it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 13 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 14 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING 15 UNDER SEAL 16 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 17 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 18 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 19 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 20 from the court to file material under seal. 21 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 22 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 23 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 24 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. 25 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 26 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 27 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 1 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 2 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 3 as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 4 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 5 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 6 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 7 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 8 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 9 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 10 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 11 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 12 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 13 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 14 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 15 declaration. 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 17 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 18 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 19 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 20 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 21 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 22 redaction is not feasible. 23 2. DEFINITIONS 24 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit. 25 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 26 designation of information or items under this Order. 27 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 1 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 2 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 3 their support staff).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Luke Carlson v. City of Redondo Beach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luke-carlson-v-city-of-redondo-beach-cacd-2020.