Michael Yaroshinsky v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 18, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-08255
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Yaroshinsky v. City of Los Angeles (Michael Yaroshinsky v. City 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
Michael Yaroshinsky v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney 1 KATHLEEN A. KENEALY, Chief Assistant City Attorney – SBN 212289 2 SCOTT MARCUS, Chief, Civil Litigation Branch - SBN 184980 CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney – SBN 115453 3 NICHOLAS LAUBER, Deputy City Attorney – SBN 288499 200 North Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East 4 Los Angeles, CA 90012 5 Phone No.: (213) 978-7025 Fax No.: (213) 978-8785 6 Email: nicholas.lauber@lacity.org 7 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, GABRIEL NILY, TED MORSE, 8 EDWIN NELSON, and ALFREDO JIMENEZ-ESCALANTE

9 MICHAEL YAROSHINSKY 10 951 Hillcrest St, Unit 1 El Segundo, CA, 90245 11 (650) 996-3327 12 Email: mikeyaroshinsky@gmail.com

13 Plaintiff & Plaintiff in Pro Per

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18

19 MICHAEL YAROSHINSKY, CASE NO.: CV19-08255-JAK(PD) Hon. Judge: John A. Konstradt, Ctrm 10B 20 Plaintiff, Mag. Judge: Patricia A. Donahue

21 vs.

22 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL; ORDER 23

24 Defendants. 25 26 27 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 1 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 6 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 7 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 8 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 9 10 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 11 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 12 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 13 14 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 15 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 16 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 17 18 the court to file material under seal. 19

20 21 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 22 This action involves the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police 23 Department officers. Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendants 24 25 the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) and Los Angeles Police Department officers 26 (collectively “Defendants”) maintain as confidential, specifically the police body 27 worn video from the incident date, police in car video from the incident date in the possession of the City, and police administrative materials, and which Defendants 1 2 believe need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 3 other than prosecuting this litigation. 4 Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information 5 6 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 7 by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 8 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 9 10 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 11 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 12 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles 13 14 Police Department officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 15 proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD 16 policy. 17 18 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 19 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 20 21 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 22 paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of 23 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 24 25 officers referenced in the materials and information. 26 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 27 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to 1 2 receive a fair trial. 3 Defendants have subpoenaed Plaintiff’s medical records which are protected 4 by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and require 5 6 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 7 prosecuting this action. Plaintiff contends that any medical information contained in 8 the subpoenaed records which is not directly related to Plaintiff’s physical shoulder 9 10 injury is irrelevant to the prosecution of this action and that absent a protective order 11 there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure which would lead to the 12 unjust annoyance and embarrassment of Plaintiff. Therefore, any documents 13 14 subpoenaed from a health care provider, if filed with the Court, shall be filed under 15 seal, and shall either file a redacted document with the consent of the party who 16 designated the document as confidential or when such measure proves inadequate 17 18 shall seek permission to file the document under seal by filing a motion for leave to 19 file under seal. 20 21 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 23 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 24 25 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 26 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 27 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 1 2 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 3 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 4 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 5 6 7 2. DEFINITIONS 8 2.1 Action: [this pending federal law suit]. 9 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 11 designation of information or items under this Order. 12 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 13 14 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 16 Cause Statement. 17 18 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 19 support staff). 20 21 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 22 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 23 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 25 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 26 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 27 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 1 2 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 3 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 4 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 5 6 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

Related

Welch v. Sullivan
8 Cal. 511 (California Supreme Court, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Yaroshinsky v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-yaroshinsky-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2020.