Richard Payne v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 21, 2020
Docket2:17-cv-09044
StatusUnknown

This text of Richard Payne v. City of Los Angeles (Richard Payne 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
Richard Payne v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 RICHARD PAYNE, an individual; CASE NO. CV 17-09044 CAS (KSx) 12 JANCHAI PAYNE, an individual; K.P., [Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder, 1st CH, Ctrm. 8D] a minor, by and through her guardian ad [Mag. Karen L. Stevenson , Roybal CH, Ctrm. 580] 13 litem, 14 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 vs. 16 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Police Chief CHARLIE BECK, in his individual 17 capacity; Does 1-100, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 6 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 7 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 8 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 9 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 10 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 11 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 12 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 13 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 14 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 15 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 16 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 In this case, Plaintiffs claim excessive use of force by law enforcement officers 18 who acted while in the course of their employment. In connection with these claims, 19 plaintiffs intend to seek discovery related to the officers’ personal and personnel 20 information and background. 21 Plaintiffs are seeking materials and information that Defendant City of Los 22 Angeles (“City”) maintain as confidential. These records may contain confidential 23 files such as personnel files of the police officers involved in this incident, Internal 24 Affairs materials and information, video recordings, audio recordings, and 25 information and other administrative materials and information currently in the 26 possession of the City and which City believes need special protection from public 27 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 28 1 Plaintiffs are also likely to seek official information contained in the personnel files 2 of the police officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains as 3 strictly confidential and which City believes need special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 5 City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by 6 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 7 California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 8 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 9 publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 10 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and 11 information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against 12 Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in 13 disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary 14 to LAPD policy. 15 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 16 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of 17 unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, 18 law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the 19 corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the 20 part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. 21 The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 22 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 23 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein 24 to receive a fair trial. 25 Thus, good cause exists for the entry of this pretrial protective order in that the 26 action involves claims of excessive force by law enforcement officers who acted 27 while in the course of their employment. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 28 1 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 2 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 3 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 4 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 5 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 6 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 7 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 8 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 9 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 10 record of this case. In order to enable the parties and the Court to more efficiently 11 work through concerns raised regarding the propriety of disclosing any such 12 information, the parties wish the Court to enter the following proposed order into the 13 record. 14 1.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 15 SEAL 16 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 17 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 18 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 19 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 20 material under seal. 21 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 22 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 23 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 24 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 25 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 26 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 27 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 28 1 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 2 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 3 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 4 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 5 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 6 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 7 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 8 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 9 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 10 See 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

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)
Welch v. Sullivan
8 Cal. 511 (California Supreme Court, 1857)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard Payne v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-payne-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2020.