Sylvana McGraw v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 19, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-04727·Unknown

Opinion

Russell J. Cole, Esq. (SBN 136981) | || DePasquale & Cole 115 Pine Avenue, Suite 560 Beach, California 90802 (213) 629-3550 © prdriclaw@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff, SYLVANA McGRAW HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney (SBN 106866) DENISE C. MILLS, Chief Deputy City Attorney (SBN 19 983 SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN 184980) \|CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney (SBN 115453) IRVING R. ESTRADA, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 314785) 200 N. Main Street, 6th floor Los Angeles, California 90012 Tel: (213) 978-2247 Fax: (213) 978-8785 Email: Irving.Estrada@lacity.org Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES and ANDREW TAYLOR SYLVANA I. MCGRAW, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-04727-MRW Hon. Michael R. Wilner; Roybal - Ctm 550 Plaintiff, Vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER TAYLOR, et al., Check if submitted without material modifications to MRW form Defendants. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 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 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. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT WHEREAS Plaintiff SYLVANA I. MCGRAW (“Plaintiff”) is seeking materials and information that Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES (“City”) maintains as confidential, including but limited to, video recordings, audio recordings, other confidential information and documents regarding this incident, and other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City and which the City believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD policy. The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. The unfettered disclosure of the materials and information, absent a protective order, would allow the media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights of Defendant herein to receive a fair trial. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation. However, the entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such Court Order. The City has not publicly released the documents, video or information referenced above except under protective order or pursuant to court order, if at all. 2. DEFINITIONS MRW 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 which 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, 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 su

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

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

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

Related