Samuel Nelson v. County of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 14, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-00832
StatusUnknown

This text of Samuel Nelson v. County of Los Angeles (Samuel Nelson 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
Samuel Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00832-DMG-MAA Document 27 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:166

1 THE SEHAT LAW FIRM, PLC Cameron Sehat, Esq. (SBN 256535) 2 5100 Campus Dr., Ste. 200 Newport, CA 92660 3 Telephone: (949) 825-5200 4 Facsimile: (949) 313-5001 Email: cameron@sehatlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Samuel Nelson 6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:22-CV-00832-DMG-MAA 10 SAMUEL NELSON, Individually

11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 v.

13 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a 14 governmental entity; DOE 1,

individually, and DOES 2 through 10,

15 Defendants. 16 17 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 21 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 22 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 23 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 24 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from

1 Case 2:22-cv-00832-DMG-MAA Document 27 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:167

1 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 2 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 3 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this 4 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 5 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 6 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the

7 Court to file material under seal. 8 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 A. Plaintiffs are seeking materials and information that Respondent County 10 of Los Angeles maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of the sheriff 11 deputies involved in this incident, officer-involved shooting investigation 12 materials and information, Internal Affairs materials and information, video 13 recordings, and other administrative materials and information currently in the 14 possession of the COUNTY and which COUNTY maintains as strictly 15 confidential and which the COUNTY believes need special protection from 16 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this 17 litigation.

18 B. COUNTY maintains that this action is likely to involve confidential 19 information contained in personnel files, police reports and investigatory files. 20 Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among 21 other things: police officer personnel records, as codified at California Penal 22 Code section 832.7 (see Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 23 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976); police investigative reports and 24 attorney work product protected under the Official Information Privilege,

2 Case 2:22-cv-00832-DMG-MAA Document 27 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:168

1 California Evidence Code sections 1040 (Official Government Information); 2 Deliberative Process information protected under ACLU v. Superior Court, 202 3 Cal.App.4th 55, 75 (2011) (quoting Regents of University of California v. 4 Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 509, 540 (1999)); Work Product information 5 protected under California Penal Code Sections 1054.6; State Summary Criminal 6 History Information protected under California Penal Code Sections 11105,

7 11120 et. seq., 11142, 1143, 13302, 13304 and 1203.05 [State Summary Criminal 8 History Information statements ("rap sheets") received by the County from the 9 California State Department of Justice are objected to as constituting a request 10 for the production of Official Information, and as imposing undue burden, 11 annoyance, oppression and expense, by way of potential misdemeanor liability 12 on the County]; and Confidential Witness Information protected under 13 California Penal Code section 841.5 which prevents disclosure of the addresses 14 and telephone numbers of witnesses to an alleged criminal offense to the person 15 who may be a defendant in any prosecution for that offense; all of the foregoing 16 types of information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 17 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal

18 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 19 C. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 20 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 21 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 22 the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 23 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 24 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such

3 Case 2:22-cv-00832-DMG-MAA Document 27 Filed 09/14/22 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:169

1 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 2 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 3 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 4 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not 5 be part of the public record of this case. 6 III. DEFINITIONS

7 A. Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 8 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 9 of information or items under this Order. 10 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how 11 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 12 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 13 the Good Cause Statement. 14 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 15 support staff). 16 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 17 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as

18 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of 20 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 21 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that 22 are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this 23 matter. 24

4 Case 2:22-cv-00832-DMG-MAA Document 27 Filed 09/14/22 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:170

1 G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 3 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 H. House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 6 counsel.

7 I. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 8 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 J. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party 10 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 11 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 12 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 13 K.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Samuel Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-nelson-v-county-of-los-angeles-cacd-2022.