M.M.G. v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 7, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-03845·Unknown

Opinion

Susan E. Coleman (SBN 171832) E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com Charles E. Slyngstad (SBN 89103) E-mail: cslyngstad@bwslaw.com Lisa W. Lee (SBN 186495) E-mail: llee@bwslaw.com 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 Attorneys for Defendant

M.M.G., a minor, by and through Case No. 2:21-cv-03845-VAP-KSx guardian ad litem James K. Sadigh; and MARK GOULD, individually, Judge Virginia A. Phillips Magistrate Karen L. Stevenson Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

1. By and through counsel of record in this action, MELANEY MITCHELL GOULD and MARK GOULD (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ( “Defendant”) hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court enter a protective order re confidential or private documents in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., Local Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and any applicable Orders of the Court – as follows: /// 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. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action involves Plaintiffs Mark Gould and Melaney Gould (“Plaintiffs”) and the City of Los Angeles (“Defendant” or the “City”). Plaintiffs are seeking materials and information that Defendant maintains as confidential, such as Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, audio recordings, personnel records and other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City which Defendant believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Defendant asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above. These materials and information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. Defendant contends that 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 disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. Defendant also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendant herein to receive a fair trial. 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. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential Confidential information. 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 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal Confidential information. 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. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or en

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

M.M.G. v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

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

Related