Shannon Hausey v. The City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 20, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-10006
StatusUnknown

This text of Shannon Hausey v. The City of Los Angeles (Shannon Hausey v. The 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
Shannon Hausey v. The City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-10006-SSS-GJS Document 41 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:196

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHANNON HAUSEY, an Individual, 11 Case No. 2:21-cv-10006-SSS (GJSx) Plaintiff, [Assigned to Judge Sunshine S. Sykes, USDC- 12 Riverside, Ctrm 2; Magistrate Gail J. Standish, Roybal v. Bldg., Ctrm 640] 13 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and 14 DOE OFFICERS 1-5, inclusive, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 15 Defendants.

16 17 18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 21 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 22 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 23 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 24 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 25 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 26 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. Case 2:21-cv-10006-SSS-GJS Document 41 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:197

1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve confidential information contained in police 5 reports and audio/video recordings, and photographs. Such confidential and 6 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things: police 7 investigative reports, body-worn video, digital in-car video, audio recordings, 8 photographs of police officers, and city attorney work product protected under the 9 Official Information Privilege, California Evidence Code sections 1040 (Official 10 Government Information); Deliberative Process information protected under ACLU 11 v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 75 (2011) (quoting Regents of University of 12 California v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 509, 540 (1999)); Work Product 13 information protected under California Penal Code Sections 1054.6; State Summary 14 Criminal History Information protected under California Penal Code Sections 15 11105, 11120 et. seq., 11142, 1143, 13302, 13304 and 1203.05 [State Summary 16 Criminal History Information statements ("rap sheets") received by the District 17 Attorney from the California State Department of Justice are objected to as 18 constituting a request for the production of Official Information, and as imposing 19 undue burden, annoyance, oppression and expense, by way of potential 20 misdemeanor liability on the District Attorney's Office]; and Confidential Witness 21 Information protected under California Penal Code section 841.5 which prevents 22 disclosure of the addresses and telephone numbers of witnesses to an alleged 23 criminal offense to the person who may be a defendant in any prosecution for that 24 offense; all of the foregoing types of information otherwise generally unavailable to 25 the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 26 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 27 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 28 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 2 Case 2:21-cv-10006-SSS-GJS Document 41 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:198

1 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 2 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 3 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 4 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 5 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 6 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 7 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 8 should not be part of the public record of this case. 9 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 11 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 12 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 13 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 14 to file material under seal. 15 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 16 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 17 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 18 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 19 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 20 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 21 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 22 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 23 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 24 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 25 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 26 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 27 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 28 3 Case 2:21-cv-10006-SSS-GJS Document 41 Filed 07/20/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:199

1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 2 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 3 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 4 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 5 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 6 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 7 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 8 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 9 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 11 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 12 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 13 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 14 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 15 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 16 2. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit: Shannon Hausey v. The City of 18 Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-10006-SSS (GJSx). 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 20 designation of information or items under this Order. 21 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 22 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 23 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 24 the Good Cause Statement.

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)
Regents of University of California v. Superior Court
976 P.2d 808 (California Supreme Court, 1999)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Court
202 Cal. App. 4th 55 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shannon Hausey v. The City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shannon-hausey-v-the-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2022.