Noho Diagnostic Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 7, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-07952
StatusUnknown

This text of Noho Diagnostic Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (Noho Diagnostic Center, Inc. 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
Noho Diagnostic Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 NOHO DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC; CASE NO. 2:24-cv-07952-ODW-SSC 12 USTIANA SHAGINIAN Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, Ctrm. 5D, 5th Floor (First Street Courthouse) 13 Plaintiff(s), Hon. Magis. Stephanie S. Christensen– Ctrm. 790, ( Roybal) 14 v. 15 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS 16 ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED DOE OFFICERS OF THE LOS 17 PROTECTIVE ORDER ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT;

18 KENNETH FRANCO; CHIEF MICHAEL MOORE; and DOES 1 19 through 20, inclusive

20 Defendant(s).

27 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 3 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 5 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 6 petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 8 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 9 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 10 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 12 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“CITY) and individual sworn police 13 officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) on one side; and on the other, 14 Plaintiffs who claim damages from the City and LAPD Officers. 15 As such, Plaintiff may seek materials and information that the City maintains as 16 confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved in the incident, video 17 recordings (including Body-Worn Video recordings and Digital In-Car Video 18 recordings), audio recordings, and other administrative materials and information 19 currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes needs special 20 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 21 this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information contained in the personnel 22 files of the Police Officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains as 23 strictly confidential and which the City believes needs special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 25 The City asserts that the confidentiality of materials and information sought by 26 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law as evidenced by, inter alia, 27 California Penal Code section 832.7, California Evidence Code section 1043 et. seq. 1 aff’d, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 2 1990); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The City has not and does 3 not publicly release the materials and information referenced above except under a 4 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 5 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against LAPD officers 6 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where officers’ conduct was 7 considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 8 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 9 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary 10 and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, 11 paralegals, and expert witnesses involved in the case, as well as the corollary risk of 12 embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD 13 officers referenced in the materials and information. 14 Defendants also seek discovery of various information relating to Plaintiff’s 15 damages claims, including employment information, housing information, financial 16 information, and confidential medical records that may be personal, private, and 17 potentially embarrassing if unnecessarily disseminated; thus, Plaintiff contends such 18 information should not be disseminated beyond this litigation. 19 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolute 20 of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 21 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 22 permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 23 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of litigation, and serve the ends of 24 justice, a protective order is necessary, Such information will not be designated as 25 confidential for tactical reasons and nothing will be designated without a good faith 26 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 27 cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 1 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further 2 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 3 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets 4 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 5 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 6 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 7 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 8 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 9 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. 10 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 11 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 12 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 13 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 14 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 15 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 16 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 17 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 18 protectable—constitute good cause. 19 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 20 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 21 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 22 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or 23 type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 24 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 25 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 26 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 27 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 2 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 3 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 4 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 5 filed.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)
Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana
936 F.2d 1027 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Miller v. Pancucci
141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. California, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Noho Diagnostic Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noho-diagnostic-center-inc-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.