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

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 7, 2023
Docket2:21-cv-03845
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 Susan E. Coleman (SBN 171832) E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com 2 Charles E. Slyngstad (SBN 89103) E-mail: cslyngstad@bwslaw.com 3 Lisa W. Lee (SBN 186495) E-mail: llee@bwslaw.com 4 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 5 Los Angeles, California 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 CITY OF LOS ANGELES

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 M.M.G., a minor, by and through Case No. 2:21-cv-03845-VAP-KSx guardian ad litem James K. Sadigh; 13 and MARK GOULD, individually, Judge Virginia A. Phillips Magistrate Karen L. Stevenson 14 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 v. ORDER

16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19

20 21 1. By and through counsel of record in this action, MELANEY MITCHELL 22 GOULD and MARK GOULD (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant CITY OF 23 LOS ANGELES, ( “Defendant”) hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the 24 Court enter a protective order re confidential or private documents in this matter 25 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., Local 26 Rules 7-1 and 52-4.1; and any applicable Orders of the Court – as follows: 27 /// 1 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 11 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 12 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 13 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 14 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 This action involves Plaintiffs Mark Gould and Melaney Gould (“Plaintiffs”) 17 and the City of Los Angeles (“Defendant” or the “City”). Plaintiffs are seeking 18 materials and information that Defendant maintains as confidential, such as Internal 19 Affairs materials and information, video recordings, audio recordings, personnel 20 records and other administrative materials and information currently in the 21 possession of the City which Defendant believes need special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 23 Defendant asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information 24 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter 25 alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for 26 N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City 27 has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above. These 1 materials and information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary 2 action against LAPD officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 3 proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD 4 policy. 5 Defendant contends that absent a protective order delineating the 6 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 7 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 8 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well 9 as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical 10 and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and 11 information. 12 Defendant also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 13 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 14 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendant 15 herein to receive a fair trial. 16 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 17 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 18 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 19 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 20 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 21 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 22 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 23 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 24 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 25 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. This 26 also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from the Confidential 27 information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of Confidential 1 Confidential information. 2 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit. 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 8 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 9 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 10 Cause Statement. This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted from 11 the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations of 12 Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations that 13 might reveal Confidential information. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 15 their support staff). 16 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 17 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 18 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 20 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 21 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 22 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 23 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 25 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 26 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 27 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 1 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M.M.G. v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mmg-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.