Nicole Juarez Zelaya v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 30, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-08382·Unknown

Opinion

MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney - SBN 111529 1 KATHLEEN A. KENEALY, Chief Deputy City Attorney – SBN 212289 SCOTT MARCUS, Senior Assistant City Attorney - SBN 184980 2 CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney – SBN 115453 COLLEEN R. SMITH, Deputy City Attorney – SBN 209719 3 200 North Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East 4 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone No.: (213) 978-7027 5 Fax No.: (213) 978-8785 Email: colleen.smith@lacity.org 6 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 10 NICOLE JUAREZ ZELAYA, Individually CASE NO.: CV20-08382-ODW (MAAx) 11 and as Successor-In-Interest to Decedent, Hon. Otis D. Wright, Crtm. 5D 5th Flr. 12 J ACOBO JUAREZ CEDILLO, Hon. Mag. Maria A. Audero, Crtm. 690, 6th Flr.

Plaintiffs, 13 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 15 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,

16 Defendants.

17 18 19 20 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 23 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 24 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 25 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 27 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 28 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 1 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 2 13.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 3 confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 4 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 5 the Court to file material under seal. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 6 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 7 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 8 this litigation may be warranted. 9 10 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angeles 12 Police Department. Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendants the 13 City of Los Angeles et al. (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of 14 the police officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, 15 video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, Force Investigation Division 16 materials and information and other administrative materials and information currently 17 in the possession of the City and which the City believes need special protection from 18 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 19 Plaintiff is also seeking official information contained in the personnel files of the police 20 officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains as strictly 21 confidential and which the City believes need special protection from public disclosure 22 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 23 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 24 by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 25 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 26 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly 27 released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order 28 or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information are of the type 1 that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles Police Department 2 (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where 3 the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 4 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 5 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 6 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 7 paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of 8 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 9 officers referenced in the materials and information. 10 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 11 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 12 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to receive a fair 13 trial. 14 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 15 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 16 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 17 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 18 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 19 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 20 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 21 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 22 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 23 not be part of the public record of this case. 24 Plaintiff does not agree with and does not stipulate to the City’s contentions 25 stated herein, and nothing in this Stipulation or its associated Order shall resolve the 26 parties’ disagreement, or bind them, concerning the legal statements and claimed 27 privileges set forth above. However, Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a 28 1 Protective Order so as to preserve the respective interests of the parties while 2 streamlining the process of resolving any disagreements. 3 The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for 4 protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records and autopsy photographs, 5 because of the privacy interests at stake therein. Because of these sensitive interests, a 6 Court Order should address these documents rather than a private agreement between 7 the parties. 8 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 9 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 10 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 11 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 12 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege 13 claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. 14 15 3. DEFINITIONS 16 3.1 Action: Nicole Juarez Zelaya v. City of Los Angeles, et al. CV20-08382- 17 ODW (MAAx). 18 3.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation 19 of information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 20 3.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 21 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 22 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

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

Nicole Juarez Zelaya v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

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

Related