Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 4, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-04167·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

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

Discovery in this action is 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 12.3, 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 Defendants County of Los Angeles, and members of the Sheriff's Department, Robert Luna, Justin Sabatine, Christopher Quinones, and Gabriela Vidrio (“Defendants”) on the one side, and Plaintiff Micheaux Fortson (“Plaintiff”), a private citizen, who is claiming damages from the County and its sheriffs for economic, physical, emotional, and mental injuries allegedly caused by them, as well as punitive damages, on the other side. One or more of the Parties assert that this action is likely to involve documents and information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, Plaintiff’s medical records and public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Further, for Defendants, limiting disclosure of these documents to the context of this litigation as provided herein may, accordingly, further important law enforcement objections and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, as well as individual privacy rights of Plaintiff, the Defendant(s), and third parties. Such confidential materials and information may consist of, among other things, materials entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7 and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et. seq; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA); the right to privacy; decisional law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendant County also contends that such confidential materials and information consist of materials that may be entitled to the Official Information Privilege and/or deliberative process privileges. Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include but is not limited to: personnel files of the deputy(ies) involved in this incident; internal investigative files and documents; as well as other information Defendants contend is not generally available to the public and is subject to the Official Information Privilege and other privileges. Further confidential information may include: psychological and medical notes, evaluations, reports, and treatment plans. The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 6 of this Order. Absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment, and professional and legal harm to the Parties and other non-party civilians who may be referenced in the materials and information. 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. Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to the County’s Contentions stated herein, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall resolve the parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and claimed privileges set forth above. However, Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of resolving any disagreements. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for protection as to any medical and psychotherapeutic records and LASD personnel and investigative records, because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of these sensitive interests, a Court Order should address these documents rather than a private agreement between the parties. The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege claims in this section, nor shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit, Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-04167-DDP (PDx) 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 ho

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

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

Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles (Micheaux Fortson v. County of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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