Slade Douglas v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 18, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-07439
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SLADE DOUGLAS, an individual, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-07439- 11 FMO(PDx) 12 Plaintiff, Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, 1st St. Crtrm 6D 13 v. Mag. Patricia Donahue, Roybal, Crtrm 580

14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; OFFICER YABANA; OFFICER WHEELER; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 AND DOES 1 TO 10, ORDER

16 Defendant.

17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 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 may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 26 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 27 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 1 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 2 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 3 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action was filed on August 20, 2019, pursuant to federal and California 6 law. Plaintiff alleges LAPD Officers Yabana and Wheeler acted unlawfully in 7 taking him into custody. The legal claims set forth in the Complaint for Damages 8 include the following: Unconstitutional detention and Excessive Force in violation 9 of the Fourth Amendment; Retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; 10 Violation of Due Process; Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; as well 11 as state law claims including Bane Act; Battery; False Arrest and Imprisonment; 12 Negligence and Negligent Employment and Supervision. 13 Since the Court scheduled dates in this case, the parties have exchanged 14 written discovery and wish to disclose certain confidential and otherwise private 15 information subject to a protective order. Plaintiff wishes to disclose certain 16 medical records which Plaintiff contends are subject to the right to privacy. See, e.g., 17 Tucson Woman’s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Whalen 18 v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977); Domingo v. Brennan, 690 F. App’x 928, 930 (9th 19 Cir. 2017) The City wishes to disclose the three (3) related body worn videos which 20 depict the incident, including the interior of Plaintiff’s apartment and his 21 transportation to the hospital. The City may also agree to disclose certain unrelated 22 Internal Affairs investigations which the City contends are also subject to the right 23 to privacy. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 24 Further, the LAPD is currently conducting an Internal Affairs investigation 25 with regard to Plaintiff’s arrest and lawsuit. The investigation is ongoing and 26 therefore, not available to be disclosed. Defense counsel will inform Plaintiff’s 27 counsel whether the investigation is deemed closed prior to the commencement of 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 3 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 4 designation of information or items under this Order. 5 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 6 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 7 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 8 the Good Cause Statement. 9 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 10 their support staff). 11 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 12 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 15 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 16 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 17 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 18 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 19 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 20 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 21 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 22 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 23 counsel. 24 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 25 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 26 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 27 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 1 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 2 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 3 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 4 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 5 support staffs). 6 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 7 Discovery Material in this Action. 8 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 9 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 10 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 11 and their employees and subcontractors. 12 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 13 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 15 Material from a Producing Party. 16 3. SCOPE 17 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 18 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 19 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 20 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 21 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 22 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 23 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 24 4. DURATION 25 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 26 imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees 27 otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be 1 or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and 2 exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, 3 including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time 4 pursuant to applicable law. 5 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 6 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. 7 Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under 8 this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that 9 qualifies under the appropriate standards.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Slade Douglas v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slade-douglas-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2021.