Paulette Smith v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 13, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-05370
StatusUnknown

This text of Paulette Smith v. City of Los Angeles (Paulette Smith 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
Paulette Smith v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

MICHAEL N. FEUER, city Attomey ! || KATHLEEN A. KENEALY, Chief Assistant City Attomey (SBN 212289) SCOTT MARCUS, Chief, Civil Litigation Branch (SBN 184980) 2 || CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney (SBN 115453) 3 GEOFFREY PLOWDEN, Deputy City Attorney (SBN146602) 200 No. Main Street, 6th Floor City Hall East A Los Angeles, California 90012. Email: geoffrey.plowden@lacity.or 5 || Phone: (213) 978-7038 Fax No: O13) 978-8785 6 || Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES 7 || THE COCHRAN FIRM DISCOVERY MATTER BRIAN DUNN (SBN 176502) 8 ||4929 Wilshire Blvd. #1010 Los Angeles, California 9010 9 || Phone Number: (323) 435-8205 Fax Number: (323) 282-5280 10 || Email: Bdunn @cochranfirm.com 11 || Attorneys for Plaintiff PAULETTE SMITH 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 PAULETTE SMITH, individually and as CASE NO. Successor in Interest to ALBERT DORSEY,| 2:19-cv—05370-—CAS—JCx 17 || deceased; 18 Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED 19 PROTECTIVE ORDER V. 20 U.S. MAGISTRATE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN 21 || entity, OFFICER EDWARD AGDEPPA, an 09 individual, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 6 || 1- A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 7 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4g proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure

1 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 2 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 3 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 4 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 5 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 6 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action is likely to involve third party privacy, HIPPA information, peace 9 officer personnel and official information for which special protection from public 10 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 11 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 12 among other things, (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 13 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 14 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 15 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 16 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 17 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 18 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 19 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 20 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 21 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 22 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 23 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 24 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 28 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 1 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 2 material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 8 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 9 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 10 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 11 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 12 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 13 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 14 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 15 constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 18 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 19 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 20 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 21 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 22 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 23 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 24 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 26 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 27 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 28 1 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 2 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 3 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 7 of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 9 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 11 Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 13 support staff). 14 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 15 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 18 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 19 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 20 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 22 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 23 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 25 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 26 counsel.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paulette Smith v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulette-smith-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2020.