Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 26, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-10252
StatusUnknown

This text of Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles (Sade Thompson 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
Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Thomas C. Hurrell, State Bar No. 119876 E-Mail: thurrell@hurrellcantrall.com 2 Jordan S. Stern, State Bar No. 311527 E-Mail: jstern@hurrellcantrall.com 3 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3800 4 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2000 5 Facsimile: (213) 426-2020 6 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, YADIRA CERVANTES, SGT. OSCAR MEDINA and SGT. OGUNJUMO 7 ROBERT S. BROWN, Esq. 8 ROBERT STANFORD BROWN, APC 714 W. Olympic Blvd Suite 450 9 Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 Tel: (213) 745-6300; Fax: (213) 261-3906 Email: rstanfordbrown@gmail.cm 11 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff SADE THOMPSON 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 16 17 18 SADE THOMPSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-10252-SRM-SSCx 19 Plaintiff, STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 v. GOVERNING PRODUCTION OF "CONFIDENTIAL" 21 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a INFORMATION public entity, YADIRA CERVANTES, 22 SGT. OSCAR MEDINA, SGT. OGUNJUMO and DOES 1 through 10, [Assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo, 23 Inclusive, Courtroom "5D"] 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 1 I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or private 3 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 4 purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties 5 hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following [Proposed] Stipulated 6 Protective Order (hereafter “this Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order 7 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery; and 8 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. 11 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve confidential information pertaining to personnel 13 records and other materials subject to privacy protections for which special protection 14 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 15 action is warranted. Limiting disclosure of these documents to the context of this 16 litigation as provided herein will, accordingly, further important law enforcement 17 objectives and interests, including the safety of personnel and the public, as well as 18 the privacy rights of plaintiff, the individual defendants, and third party witnesses. 19 Such confidential materials and information consists of, among other things, materials 20 entitled to privileges and/or protections under the following: the United States 21 Constitution, First Amendment; the California Constitution, Article I, Section 1; 22 California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 23 and 1043, et seq.; the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Health Insurance 24 Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, decisional 25 law relating to such provisions; and information otherwise generally unavailable to 26 the public; or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 27 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Defendants also 1 to the Official Information Privilege. 2 Confidential information with respect to the Defendants may include: 3 personnel files; internal investigative files and documents; email and written 4 correspondence records; and policies and procedures that are kept from the public in 5 the ordinary course of business, as well as other items subject to the Official 6 Information Privilege and other privileges. Confidential information with respect to 7 the Plaintiff may include: employment and financial records; email and written 8 correspondence records; and psychological notes, evaluations, and report and 9 treatment plans relating to the treatment, care, and evaluation of the Plaintiff. 10 The parties reserve the right to challenge a designation of confidentiality 11 pursuant to the terms set forth under Paragraph 8 of this Order. 12 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information; to facilitate the prompt 13 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials; to adequately 14 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential; to ensure that the 15 parties are permitted to reasonably use such material in preparation for and in conduct 16 of trial; to address their handling at the end of the litigation; and serve the ends of 17 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 18 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 19 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 20 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner; and there is good cause why it 21 should not be part of the public record of this case. 22 III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 23 SEAL 24 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 25 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 26 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 27 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 2 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 3 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 4 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 5 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 6 cause showing, and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 7 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 8 material that a party seeks to file under seal). The parties’ mere designation of 9 material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not— without the submission of competent 10 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 11 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 12 Further, if a party requests sealing related to dispositive motion or trial, then 13 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 14 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 15 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 17 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 18 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 19 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 20 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 21 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 22 IV. DEFINITIONS 23 4.1 Action: Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, et al. Case No. 2:24- 24 cv-10252-SRM-SSCx. 25 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 26 of information or items under this Order. 27 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 1 things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 2 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3 4.4 Counsel: General Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 4 their support staff).

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sade Thompson v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sade-thompson-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2025.