Richard Lugo v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 12, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-06620
StatusUnknown

This text of Richard Lugo v. County of Los Angeles (Richard Lugo v. County 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
Richard Lugo v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RICHARD LUGO, individually, ) Case No. 2:20-cv-06620-MWF-PVC ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 vs. ) ) 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a ) municipal entity, and DOES 1 ) 15 through 10, inclusive, ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 18 19 1. INTRODUCTION 20 1.1 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 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 25 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 26 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 28 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 1 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set 2 forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 3 them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth 4 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 5 a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 6 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 Unlike the parties in Oliner v. Kontrabecki, who sought to seal the entire 8 record including motions and the court’s opinion, in this case the parties seek 9 only to seal discovery materials and information that will involve the production 10 of confidential records. Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 11 2014). The nature of the incident that gives rise to Plaintiff’s suit and Plaintiff’s 12 claims and allegations that Defendants violated his civil rights based on 13 Defendants’ policies and procedures, will result in discovery production that 14 includes: criminal investigation materials; police reports; confidential informant 15 information; medical records; financial materials; peace officer personnel 16 materials; information implicating the privacy rights of third parties (i.e., 17 bystander witnesses, emergency personnel information); and other private and 18 confidential materials for which special protection from public disclosure. 19 The harms that could occur because of public disclosure include but are not 20 limited to: the risk to the personal safety of individuals identified in the 21 investigation materials; the improper use of demographic information collected 22 during the investigation that could lead to substantial financial harm; and the 23 potential violation of the Government privilege, resulting in future hesitancy by 24 private citizens to aid law enforcement in investigations because of the risk of 25 public disclosure of their information. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 26 623, 627 (1957) (the Government privilege encourages citizens to communicate 27 their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials by 28 preserving their anonymity) 1 Furthermore, in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 2 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 3 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 4 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 5 connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at the end 6 of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 7 information is justified in this matter. The parties shall not designate any 8 information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief that such 9 information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public 10 manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be 11 part of the public record of this case. 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: The instant action: Richard Lugo v. County of Los Angeles, 14 et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06620-MWF-PVC. 15 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items under this Order. 17 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 18 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 20 the Good Cause Statement. 21 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 22 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or 23 Items, the disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a 24 substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive 25 means, that will require a separate and detailed showing of need. 26 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 27 their support staff). 28 // 1 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 2 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 3 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES 4 ONLY.” 5 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 6 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 7 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 8 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in 9 this matter. 10 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 11 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 12 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 13 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 14 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 15 outside counsel. 16 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 17 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 18 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 19 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 20 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a 21 law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 22 2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 23 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and 24 their support staffs). 25 2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 26 Discovery Material in this Action. 27 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 28 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits 1 or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 2 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 3 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 4 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- 5 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 6 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 7 Material from a Producing Party. 8 3. SCOPE 9 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 10 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 11 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 12 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 13 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

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

Related

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
353 U.S. 26 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Aron Oliner v. John Kontrabecki
745 F.3d 1024 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard Lugo v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-lugo-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2021.