Slade Douglas v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 18, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-07439·Unknown

Opinion

SLADE DOUGLAS, an individual, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-07439- FMO(PDx) Plaintiff, Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, 1st St. Crtrm 6D v. Mag. Patricia Donahue, Roybal, Crtrm 580

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; OFFICER YABANA; OFFICER WHEELER; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE AND DOES 1 TO 10, ORDER

Defendant.

1. A. 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. This action was filed on August 20, 2019, pursuant to federal and California law. Plaintiff alleges LAPD Officers Yabana and Wheeler acted unlawfully in taking him into custody. The legal claims set forth in the Complaint for Damages include the following: Unconstitutional detention and Excessive Force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; Retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; Violation of Due Process; Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; as well as state law claims including Bane Act; Battery; False Arrest and Imprisonment; Negligence and Negligent Employment and Supervision. Since the Court scheduled dates in this case, the parties have exchanged written discovery and wish to disclose certain confidential and otherwise private information subject to a protective order. Plaintiff wishes to disclose certain medical records which Plaintiff contends are subject to the right to privacy. See, e.g., Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977); Domingo v. Brennan, 690 F. App’x 928, 930 (9th Cir. 2017) The City wishes to disclose the three (3) related body worn videos which depict the incident, including the interior of Plaintiff’s apartment and his transportation to the hospital. The City may also agree to disclose certain unrelated Internal Affairs investigations which the City contends are also subject to the right to privacy. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Further, the LAPD is currently conducting an Internal Affairs investigation with regard to Plaintiff’s arrest and lawsuit. The investigation is ongoing and therefore, not available to be disclosed. Defense counsel will inform Plaintiff’s counsel whether the investigation is deemed closed prior to the commencement of 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items or oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, documents, items or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If

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

Slade Douglas v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

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

Related

Whalen v. Roe
429 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Nestor Domingo v. Megan J. Brennan
690 F. App'x 928 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)