Sylvana McGraw v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 19, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-04727
StatusUnknown

This text of Sylvana McGraw v. City of Los Angeles (Sylvana McGraw 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
Sylvana McGraw v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Russell J. Cole, Esq. (SBN 136981) | || DePasquale & Cole 115 Pine Avenue, Suite 560 2 Beach, California 90802 (213) 629-3550 © 3 || prdriclaw@gmail.com 4 || Attorney for Plaintiff, SYLVANA McGRAW 5 HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney (SBN 106866) 6 || DENISE C. MILLS, Chief Deputy City Attorney (SBN 19 983 SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN 184980) 7 \|CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney (SBN 115453) IRVING R. ESTRADA, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 314785) 8 ||200 N. Main Street, 6th floor Los Angeles, California 90012 9 ||Tel: (213) 978-2247 Fax: (213) 978-8785 10 Email: Irving.Estrada@lacity.org 11 || Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES and ANDREW TAYLOR 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 || SYLVANA I. MCGRAW, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-04727-MRW Hon. Michael R. Wilner; Roybal - Ctm 550 17 Plaintiff, 18 Vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ANDREW 20 || TAYLOR, et al., Check if submitted without material modifications to MRW form 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 || 1. INTRODUCTION 25 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 26 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 27 |\or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 28 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the

1 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 2 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 3 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 4 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 5 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties 6 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective 7 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 8 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 9 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 10 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 WHEREAS Plaintiff SYLVANA I. MCGRAW (“Plaintiff”) is seeking materials 12 and information that Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (“City”) maintains as 13 confidential, including but limited to, video recordings, audio recordings, other 14 confidential information and documents regarding this incident, and other administrative 15 materials and information currently in the possession of the City and which the City 16 believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 17 other than prosecuting this litigation. 18 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by 19 Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California 20 Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 21 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly released the 22 materials and information referenced above except under protective order or pursuant to a 23 court order, if at all. These materials and information are of the type that has been used 24 to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, 25 and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct 26 was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. 27 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of 1 undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals 2 and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, 3 harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced 4 in the materials and information. The unfettered disclosure of the materials and 5 information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information 6 with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of Defendant herein to receive a fair 7 trial. 8 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 9 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 10 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 11 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 12 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 13 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 14 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 15 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 16 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 17 public record of this case. 18 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 19 request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 20 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the 21 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be 22 construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege 23 claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. 24 The City has not publicly released the documents, video or information referenced above 25 except under protective order or pursuant to court order, if at all. 26 27 2. DEFINITIONS 1 MRW 2 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 3 information or items under this Order. 4 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 5 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 7 Statement. 8 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 9 support staff). 10 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 11 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 12 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 13 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 14 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 15 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 16 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 17 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 18 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 19 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 20 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 21 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 22 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 23 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 24 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 25 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has 26 appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sylvana McGraw v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sylvana-mcgraw-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.