Norma Segovia v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 14, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00415
StatusUnknown

This text of Norma Segovia v. City of Los Angeles (Norma Segovia 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
Norma Segovia v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Muammar Reed, Esq., SBN #275133 1 REED LAW, P.C. 5777 W Century Blvd., STE 1088 2 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Tel.: (323) 545-6858 3 Fax: (323) 546-0902 Email: reedm@reedlawyer.com 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs, NORMA SEGOVIA & ISAAC ALEMAN 5

6 HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney (SBN 106866) 7 DENISE C. MILLS, Chief Deputy City Attorney (SBN 191992) SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN 184980) 8 CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney (SBN 115453) IRVING R. ESTRADA, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 314785) 9 200 N. Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012 10 Tel: (213) 978-2247 Fax: (213) 978-8785 Email: Irving.Estrada@lacity.org 11 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, MILAGROS ACEVES and 12 SAMUEL HONG

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16

17 NORMA SEGOVIA, an individual, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00415-JLS-PD ISAAC ALEMAN, an individual, Hon. Josephine L. Staton; 1st St CH – Ctrm. 8A 18 Hon. Mag. Patricia Donahue; Roybal – Ctrm.580 Plaintiffs, 19

20 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

21 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, OFFICER ACESVES, an individual, OFFICER 22 HONG, an individual, and DOES 1 23 through 20, inclusive,

24 Defendants. 25

27 1 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 disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 8 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 WHEREAS Plaintiffs NORMA SEGOVIA and ISAAC ALEMAN 13 (“Plaintiffs”) are seeking materials and information that Defendant CITY OF LOS 14 ANGELES (“City”) maintains as confidential, including but limited to, video 15 recordings, audio recordings, other confidential information and documents regarding 16 this incident, and other administrative materials and information currently in the 17 possession of the City and which the City believes need special protection from public 18 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 19 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 20 by Plaintiffs is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 21 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 22 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 23 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 24 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 25 are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles 26 Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 27 proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD 1 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 2 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of 3 unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, 4 law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the 5 corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the 6 part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. The unfettered 7 disclosure of the materials and information, absent a protective order, would allow the 8 media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights 9 of Defendant herein to receive a fair trial. 10 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 11 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 12 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 13 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 14 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 15 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 16 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 17 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 18 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 19 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 20 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 21 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 22 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 23 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 24 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or 25 privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such 26 Court Order. 27 The City has not publicly released the documents, video or information 1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 4 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 5 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 6 material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 10 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 12 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 13 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 14 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 15 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 16 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 17 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 18 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 19 protectable—constitute good cause. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 22 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 23 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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