Natia Sampson v. County of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 10, 2021·No. 5:17-cv-00599·Unknown

Opinion

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 || NATIA SAMPSON, 15 Plaintiff, 16 ] 7 Vv. 18 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, by and | CASE NO. 19 || through THE LOS ANGELES 0 COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ED CV 17-0599-FLA (KSx) CHILDREN AND FAMILY 21 : STIPULATED SERVICES: PHILIP L. BROWNING, PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: 22 Individual; NICOLE DAVIS, an DISCLOSURE OF Individual; KILENE SHORT, an JUVENILE CASE FILES 23 || Individual; AHMED OBAKHUME, an | FOR HLS. 24 || Individual; DAWNA YOKOYAMA, an 5 Individual; GERALDO IBARRA, an Individual; and DOES 1 through 50, 26 || inclusive, 27 Defendants. 28 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE CASE FILES OF HLS.

1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among the parties hereto, through 2 their respective outside counsel of record as follows: 3 1. GENERAL 4 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. 5 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or 6 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 7 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 8 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 9 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 10 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 11 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to 12 the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under 13 the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 14 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 15 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 16 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 17 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 18 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 19 This civil rights action arises out of a series of events that occurred in state 20 juvenile dependency court. Specifically, Plaintiff Natia Sampson has asserted a 21 claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against four Department of Children and Family 22 Services (“DCFS”) social workers—— Nicole Davis, Ahmed Obakhume, 23 Dawna Yokoyama, and Geraldo Ibarra—alleging that these defendants violated 24 her civil rights by retaliating against her for exercising her First Amendment 25 rights in the course and scope of the dependency proceedings of Plaintiff’s niece, 27 The parties to this civil action, in preparation of their respective cases, 28 require access to and copies of the juvenile case files in the underlying juvenile 1 dependency action (LASC Case No. CK80819). Plaintiff does not object to a 2 court order allowing the parties to produce the juvenile case files as defined in 3 Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code §827(e) and Cal. R. of Court, Rule 5.552. 4 The County of Los Angeles DCFS and Plaintiff Natia Sampson are both in 5 possession of portions of the juvenile case files. However, California Welfare & 6 Institutions Code, §827 provides that a juvenile’s “case file” is “confidential” and 7 may only be inspected by people identified in the statute or through a court order. 8 See Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code §827. The term “juvenile case file” is defined by 9 §827(e), which provides as follows: “For purposes of this section, a 'juvenile case 10 file' means a petition filed in any juvenile court proceeding, reports of the 11 probation officer, and all other documents filed in that case or made available to 12 the probation officer in making his or her report, or to the judge, referee, or other 13 hearing officer, and thereafter retained by the probation officer, judge, referee, or 14 other hearing officer.” Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code §827(e). Cal. R. of Court, Rule 15 5.552(a) defines the "juvenile case file" as: (1) All DOCUMENTS filed in a 16 juvenile court case; (2) Reports to the court by probation officers, social workers 17 of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers; (3) DOCUMENTS 18 made available to probation officers, social workers of child welfare services 19 programs, and CASA volunteers in preparation of reports to the court; (4) 20 DOCUMENTS relating to a child concerning whom a petition has been filed in 21 juvenile court that are maintained in the office files of probation officers, social 22 workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers; (5) 23 Transcripts, records, or reports relating to matters prepared or released by the 24 court, probation department, or child welfare services program; and (6) 25 DOCUMENTS, video or audio tapes, photographs, and exhibits admitted into 26 evidence at juvenile court hearings.) 27 Given the confidential nature of juvenile case files, Welfare & Institutions 28 Code §827 strictly limits the inspection and release of such files, as well as “any 1 portion thereof” and any “information relating to the content of the juvenile case 2 file.” Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code § 827(a)(4). To that end, Section 827 enumerates a 3 list of limited persons who are authorized inspect a juvenile case file without a 4 court order (Id., subd. (a)(1)(A)-(P)), and in turn provides that authorized person 5 may not disclose information from the juvenile file to an unauthorized person 6 without a court order. Id., subd. (a)(4). Persons not enumerated in the statute may 7 only inspect such files “by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon 8 filing a petition.” Id., subd. (a)(1)(Q). Rule 5.552 of the California Rules of Court 9 and Rule 7. 2 of the Los Angeles Superior Court set forth the petition procedure. 10 The parties to this action have filed petitions in accordance with the petition 11 procedure set forth in Rule 5.552 of the California Rules of Court and Rule 7. 2 of 12 the Los Angeles Superior Court. Defendant’s petition was filed in Los Angeles 13 Superior Court on December 19, 2020. The petitions have not yet been granted. 14 Due to severe backlog in the Los Angeles Superior Court, this petition process 15 typically takes approximately one year, and sometimes more. Thus, at this time, 16 records that are highly relevant to this litigation are unavailable from any source, 17 other than the County of Los Angeles DCFS and Plaintiff Natia Sampson. 18 The Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized that in a civil rights action, 19 the district court can order disclosure of a juvenile court file notwithstanding state 20 law. Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F 3d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 2003). Although federal 21 courts have found that Welfare & Institutions Code section 827 is not binding in 22 federal lawsuits, federal courts should still weigh the needs of the case versus the 23 State interest in and policy considerations of keeping the contents of the juvenile 24 case file confidential when determining whether records should be disclosed in 25 the federal action. Estate of Maldonado v. Sec’y of the Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & 26 Rehab., No. 2:06CV02696-MCE/GGH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91084, at *13-17 27 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2007); Van Horn v Hornbeak, No. 1:08CV1622 LJO DLB, 28 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147669, at *10-13 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010); Doe No. 59 1 v. Santa Rose City Sch., No. 3:16-CV-012560WHO, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2 29126, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017). 3 Thus, in order to avoid further delay, in the interests of preserving resources 4 and judicial economy, and with a good faith belief that disclosing the records 5 meets the tests in Maldonado and Doe No.

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

Natia Sampson v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

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

Related