Pedro Portillo v. Carlos Mendoza

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 16, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-08576
StatusUnknown

This text of Pedro Portillo v. Carlos Mendoza (Pedro Portillo v. Carlos Mendoza) 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
Pedro Portillo v. Carlos Mendoza, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney KATHLEEN A. KENEALY, Chief Deputy City Attorney (SBN 212289) 2 SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN 184980) 3 CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney (SBN 115453) MATTHEW W. McALEER, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 278595) 4 200 North Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East 5 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone No.: (213) 978-7043 6 Fax No.: (213) 978-8785 7 Email: Matthew.McAleer@lacity.org 8 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CARLOS MENDOZA, 9 DEXTER NAVARRO, and CHRISTIAN PERAZA 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 PEDRO PORTILLO, an individual, CASE NO.: CV21-08576-SVW-ASx 14 Hon. Stephen V. Wilson; Ctrm. 10A, 10th Fl. Plaintiff, Hon. Mag. Alka Sagar; Ctrm. 540, 5th Fl. 15 16 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 CARLOS MENDOZA, #40867, 18 individually and as a peace officer; DEXTER NAVARRO, #40258, 19 individually and as a peace officer; 20 CHRISTIAN PERAZA, #40575, individually and as a peace officer; CITY 21 OF LOS ANGELES; and, DOES 1-50, 22 inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 26 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 27 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 1 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 2 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 3 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 4 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 5 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 6 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 7 12.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 8 confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 9 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 10 permission from the court to file material under seal. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (“Defendant City”) and Pedro 13 Portillo (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant 14 City maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers involved 15 in this incident, video recordings, audio recordings, and information and other 16 administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City and 17 which Defendant City believes needs special protection from public disclosure and 18 from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff is also 19 seeking official information contained in the personnel files of the police officers 20 involved in the subject incident, which the Defendant City maintains as strictly 21 confidential and which Defendant City believes needs special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 23 Defendant City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information 24 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 25 by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 26 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The Defendant 27 City has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above except 1 information are of the type that have been used to initiate disciplinary action against 2 Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in 3 disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary 4 to LAPD policy. 5 Defendant City contends that absent a protective order delineating the 6 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 7 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the attorneys, secretaries, 8 law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the 9 corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment as well as professional, physical and 10 legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and 11 information. 12 Defendant City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 13 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 14 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the Defendant 15 City and the individual defendants to receive a fair trial. Accordingly, to expedite the 16 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 17 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 18 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 19 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 20 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 21 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 22 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 23 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 24 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 25 part of the public record of this case. This also includes (1) any information copied or 26 extracted from the Confidential information; (2) copies, excerpts, summaries or 27 compilations of Confidential information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Portillo v. Mendoza, et al., Case 3 No. CV21-08576-SVW-ASx. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 5 of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 7 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 8 for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 9 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 11 their support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 16 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 17 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 18 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 19 discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel 22 to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 25 outside counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 27 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 1 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this 2 Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are 3 affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and 4 includes support staff. 5 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 7 (and their support staffs).

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

Related

Caperton v. Schmidt
26 Cal. 479 (California Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pedro Portillo v. Carlos Mendoza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedro-portillo-v-carlos-mendoza-cacd-2021.