Sascha B. Koch v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 9, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-07714·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SASCHA B. KOCH, individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-07714-CAS-PD Plaintiff, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE V. ORDER 4 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. (PD Version) 15 Defendant. CO Check if submitted without material modifications to PD form 16 17 18 |] 1. INTRODUCTION 19 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidentiz 21 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public □□□□□□□□□ 22 || and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warrante 23 || Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the followir 24 || Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not conf 25 || blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protectic 26 || it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information « 27 || items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principle 28 || The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this □□□□□□□□□

1 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 2 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 3 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 4 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action involves the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and members of the 6 City’s Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) including Laura Brinkman, Joshua 7 Towe and Manuel Vargas (collectively “Defendants”). The nature of the incident that 8 gives rise to Plaintiff’s suit and Plaintiff’s claims and allegations, will result in 9 discovery production that includes: police reports and evidence; investigation reports 10 and evidence; peace officer personnel materials; information implicating the privacy 11 rights of third parties (i.e., bystander witnesses, emergency personnel information); 12 and other private and confidential materials for which require special protection from 13 public disclosure. 14 Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant(s) 15 maintain as confidential such as personnel files of the police and/or sworn officers 16 involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings, 17 audio recordings, photographs, and information and other administrative materials 18 and information currently in the possession of Defendants and which Defendants 19 believe need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 20 other than prosecuting this litigation. Plaintiff may also seek official information 21 contained in the personnel files of the police and/or sworn officers involved in the 22 subject incident, which Defendants maintain as strictly confidential and which 23 Defendants believe need special protection from public disclosure and from use for 24 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 25 Defendants assert that the confidentiality of the materials and information 26 sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia 27 by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. 1 not publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under 2 protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. The personnel materials and 3 information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against 4 the City’s respective employees, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 5 proceedings, where the employee conduct was considered to be contrary to policy. 6 Defendants contend that absent a protective order delineating the 7 responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific 8 risk of unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, 9 secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well 10 as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm 11 on the part of the City’s employees referenced in the materials and information. 12 Defendants also contend that the unfettered disclosure of the materials and 13 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this 14 information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of Defendants herein 15 to receive a fair trial. 16 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 17 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 18 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 19 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 20 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 21 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 22 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 23 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 24 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 25 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 26 Plaintiff agrees that there is Good Cause for a Protective Order so as to preserve 27 the respective interests of the parties while streamlining the process of resolving any 1 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 2 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 3 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 4 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 5 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or 6 privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such 7 Court Order. 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: Sasha Koch v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No. CV-19- 10 05762-JLS-ADSx) 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 12 of information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 14 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 16 Statement 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 23 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 24 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 25 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 27 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 1 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 2 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 3 counsel. 4 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 5 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Sascha B. Koch v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)