Tommy R. Mercurio v. Estate of Christopher Mercurio, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 6, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-11089
StatusUnknown

This text of Tommy R. Mercurio v. Estate of Christopher Mercurio, et al. (Tommy R. Mercurio v. Estate of Christopher Mercurio, et al.) 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
Tommy R. Mercurio v. Estate of Christopher Mercurio, et al., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 CC@Contreras-Law.Com Law Offices of Christian Contreras 2 360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 3 Telephone: (323) 435-8000 Facsimile: (323) 597-0101 4

Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 Tommy R. Mercurio

6 Denisse O. Gastelum, SBN 282771 dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com 7 Gastelum Law 3767 Worsham Avenue 8 Long Beach, CA 90806 Telephone: (213) 340-6112 9 Facsimile: (213) 402-8622

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Estate of Christopher Mercurio, et al. 11

[Additional counsel cont. on next page] 12

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 WESTERN DIVISION 16

17 ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER Case No. 2:24-cv-11089 18 MERCURIO, by and through Judge: John A. Kronstadt Successor in Interest, Hayley 19 Bernal; Hayley Bernal, Magistrate Judge: A. Joel Richlin individually; TOMMY R. 20 MERCURIO, individually [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 21 Plaintiff, v. 22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 23 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, a public entity; COUNTY OF LOS 24 ANGELES, public entity; and LORENA GONZALEZ, an 25 individual Defendants. 26

28 1 Angela M. Powell, SBN 191876 2 amp@jones-mayer.com Helen O. Kim, SBN 254560 3 hok@jones-mayer.com JONES MAYER 4 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 5 Telephone: (714) 446-1400 Facsimile: (714) 446-1448 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, County of Los Angeles, and Lorena Gonzalez 8 9 1. GENERAL 10 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 11 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which 12 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 13 than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties 14 hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 15 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 16 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 17 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 18 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 19 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 20 Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 21 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 22 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 23 a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 24 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 25 This action is likely to involve discovery that is confidential and privileged 26 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 27 other than prosecution of this action may be warranted. Such confidential and 28 1 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 2 information pertaining to the investigation from Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 3 Department (LACSD) and California Department of Justice (DOJ) of the 4 underlying criminal activities, as well as peace officer personnel file information 5 and/or documents which the parties agree include (1) Personal data, including 6 marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home 7 addresses, or similar information; (2) Medical history; (3) Election of employee 8 benefits; (4) Employee advancement, appraisal or discipline; and (5) Complaints, 9 or investigations of complaints, if any, concerning an event or transaction in 10 which a peace officer participated, or which a peace officer perceived, and 11 pertaining to the manner in which the peace officer performed his or her duties. 12 Such confidential materials and information consist of, among other 13 things, materials which may be entitled to privileges and/or protections under 14 the following: United States Constitution, First Amendment; the California 15 Constitution, Article I, Section 1; California Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7 and 16 832.8; California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043 et. seq; the Privacy Act of 17 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 18 1996 (HIPPA); the right to privacy; decisional law relating to such provisions; 19 and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 20 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 21 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 22 Defendants also contend that such confidential materials and information 23 are entitled to the Official Information Privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 24 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. Cal.1990); see also Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. 25 for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. Cal. 1975). Aff’d, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. 26 Ct. 3229, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). The information otherwise may be generally 27 unavailable to the public, or may be privileged or otherwise protected from 28 1 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 2 law. 3 Further, discovery may require depositions, written discovery and/or the 4 production of certain information the public disclosure of which could comprise 5 officer safety, and/or raise security issues. Additionally, public disclosure of 6 such information poses a substantial risk of embarrassment, oppression, and/or 7 physical harm to peace officers whose confidential information is disclosed. The 8 risk of harm to peace officers is greater than with other government employees 9 due to the nature of their profession. The benefit of public disclosure of 10 confidential information is minimal while the potential disadvantages are great. 11 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 12 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 13 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 14 the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 15 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 16 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 17 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 18 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 19 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 20 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not 21 be part of the public record of this case. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: Estate of Christopher Mercurio, by and through Successor 24 in Interest, Hayley Bernal; Hayley Bernal, individually; Tommy R. Mercurio, 25 individually v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, a public entity; 26 County of Los Angeles, a public entity; and Lorena Gonzalez, an individual. 27 28 1 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 2 designation of information or items under this Order. 3 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 4 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 5 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above 6 in the Good Cause Statement. 7 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 8 their 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)
Tommy R. Mercurio v. Estate of Christopher Mercurio, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tommy-r-mercurio-v-estate-of-christopher-mercurio-et-al-cacd-2025.