Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 4, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-04167
StatusUnknown

This text of Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles (Micheaux Fortson 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
Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 Thomas C. Hurrell, State Bar No. 119876 E-Mail: thurrell@hurrellcantrall.com 2 Kevin Rashidi, State Bar No. 334101 E-Mail: krashidi@hurrellcantrall.com 3 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3800 4 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2000 5 Facsimile: (213) 426-2020

6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ROBERT LUNA, JUSTIN SABATINE, C. QUINONES, and G. VIDRIO 7 Dan Stormer, Esq. [S.B. # 101967] 8 Kate McFarlane, Esq. [S.B. #340706] HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP 9 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103 10 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Facsimile: (626) 577-7079 11 Emails: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com kmcfarlane@hadsellstormer.com 12 Olu K. Orange, Esq. [S.B. #213653] 13 ORANGE LAW OFFICES 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 14 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 736-9900 15 Facsimile: (213) 417-8800 Email: oluorange@att.net 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff, MICHEAUX FORTSON 17

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 20

21 MICHEAUX FORTSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-04167-DDP (PDx) 22 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 23 ORDER v. 24 Assigned to Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Courtroom "9C " 25 ROBERT LUNA, JUSTIN SABATINE, C. QUINONES, G. 26 VIDRIO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 27 Defendants. 1

2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 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 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 9 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 10 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 11 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 12 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 14 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 15 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 16 permission from the court to file material under seal. 17 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 This action involves the Defendants County of Los Angeles, and members of 19 the Sheriff's Department, Robert Luna, Justin Sabatine, Christopher Quinones, and 20 Gabriela Vidrio (“Defendants”) on the one side, and Plaintiff Micheaux Fortson 21 (“Plaintiff”), a private citizen, who is claiming damages from the County and its 22 sheriffs for economic, physical, emotional, and mental injuries allegedly caused by 23 them, as well as punitive damages, on the other side. One or more of the Parties assert 24 that this action is likely to involve documents and information for which special 25 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution 26 of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 27 information consist of, among other things, Plaintiff’s medical records and 1 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state 2 or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 3 Further, for Defendants, limiting disclosure of these documents to the context 4 of this litigation as provided herein may, accordingly, further important law 5 enforcement objections and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, 6 as well as individual privacy rights of Plaintiff, the Defendant(s), and third parties. 7 Such confidential materials and information may consist of, among other things, 8 materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: United States 9 Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; 10 California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7 and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 11 and 1043 et. seq; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552; Health Insurance Portability 12 and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA); the right to privacy; decisional law relating 13 to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 14 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 15 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendant County also contends 16 that such confidential materials and information consist of materials that may be 17 entitled to the Official Information Privilege and/or deliberative process privileges. 18 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include but is not 19 limited to: personnel files of the deputy(ies) involved in this incident; internal 20 investigative files and documents; as well as other information Defendants contend is 21 not generally available to the public and is subject to the Official Information 22 Privilege and other privileges. Further confidential information may include: 23 psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, and treatment plans. 24 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 25 pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 6 of this Order. 26 Absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on 27 the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue 1 and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of 2 embarrassment, harassment, and professional and legal harm to the Parties and other 3 non-party civilians who may be referenced in the materials and information. 4 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 5 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 6 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 7 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 8 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 9 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 10 It is the 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 it 12 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 13 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 14 Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to the County’s Contentions 15 stated herein, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall resolve the 16 parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and claimed 17 privileges set forth above. However, Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a 18 Protective Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties while 19 streamlining the process of resolving any disagreements. 20 The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for 21 protection as to any medical and psychotherapeutic records and LASD personnel and 22 investigative records, because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of 23 these sensitive interests, a Court Order should address these documents rather than a 24 private agreement between the parties. 25 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 26 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 27 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/micheaux-fortson-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2024.