Richard Payne v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 21, 2020·No. 2:17-cv-09044·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RICHARD PAYNE, an individual; CASE NO. CV 17-09044 CAS (KSx) 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] litem, Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Police Chief CHARLIE BECK, in his individual capacity; Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT In this case, Plaintiffs claim excessive use of force by law enforcement officers who acted while in the course of their employment. In connection with these claims, plaintiffs intend to seek discovery related to the officers’ personal and personnel information and background. Plaintiffs are seeking materials and information that Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) maintain as confidential. These records may contain confidential files such as personnel files of the police officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, audio recordings, and information and other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City and which City believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiffs are also likely to seek official information contained in the personnel files of the police officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains as strictly confidential and which City believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. The City also contends that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of the City herein to receive a fair trial. Thus, good cause exists for the entry of this pretrial protective order in that the action involves claims of excessive force by law enforcement officers who acted while in the course of their employment. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. In order to enable the parties and the Court to more efficiently work through concerns raised regarding the propriety of disclosing any such information, the parties wish the Court to enter the following proposed order into the record. 1.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confi

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

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

Richard Payne v. City of Los Angeles (Richard Payne v. City of Los Angeles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)