Vincent Turrey v. City of Los Angeles

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 19, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-05492
StatusUnknown

This text of Vincent Turrey v. City of Los Angeles (Vincent Turrey 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
Vincent Turrey v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 || Yana G. Henriks, Esq. (SBN 250638) Email: Pent iks alan h.cont 2 ||McMURRAY HENRIKS, LL 811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1640 3 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel.: (323) 931-6200 4 || Fax: (323) 931-9521 5 || Attorney for Plaintiff, VINCENT TURREY 6 HYDEE FELDSTEIN SOTO, City Attorney (SBN RCO) 7 || SCOTT MARCUS, Chief Assistant City Attorney (SBN 184980) CORY M. BRENITTE, Senior Assistant ity Attorney (SEN 115453) 8 || IRVING R. ESTRADA, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 314785) 200 N. Main Street, 6th floor 9 || Los Angeles, California 90012 Tel: (213) 978-2247 Fax: (213) 978-8785 10 || Email: Irving. Estrada@lacity.org 11 Attorneys (or. Relendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF MICHEL MOORE (named in the Complaint as “POLICE 12 || CHIEF MICHAEL MOORE”), OFFICER JOEL DOMINGUEZ and OFFICER 13 RICARDO LEON

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 7 VINCENT TURREY, an individual, CASE NO. CV22-05492 MCS (MRWx) Hon. Mark C. Searst; St CH - Ctrm. 7C 18 Plaintiff, Hon. Mag. Michael R. Wilner; Roybal — Ctrm. 550 19 vs. 0 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a 91 || California municipal entity; LOS ANGELES POLICE Check if submitted without material 22 | DEPARTMENT, a public entity; modifications to MRW form POLICE CHIEF MICHAEL 23 MOORE, an individual; OFFICER. ||JOEL DOMINGUEZ, an individual; OFFICER RICARDO LEON, an 25 individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 26 Defendants. 28 ]

144i. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 5 from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 6 || Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 7 || following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 8 |jnot confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 9 || protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 10 || information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 11 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 12 || that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 13 |\information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 14 || followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 15 court to file material under seal. 16 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 WHEREAS Plaintiff VINCENT TURREY (“Plaintiff’) is seeking materials 18 || and information that Defendant the City of Los Angeles (“City”) maintains as 19 || confidential, including but limited to, video recordings, audio recordings, other 20 confidential information and documents regarding this incident, and other 21 administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City and 22 || which the City believes need special protection from public disclosure and from use 23 || for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. 24 The City asserts that the confidentiality of the materials and information sought 25 || by Plaintiffs is recognized by California and federal law, as evidenced inter alia by 26 |i California Penal Code section 832.7 and Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 27 ||511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976). The City has not 28 || publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under

1 || protective order or pursuant to a court order, if at all. These materials and information 2 || are of the type that has been used to initiate disciplinary action against Los Angeles 3 | Police Department (“LAPD”) officers, and has been used as evidence in disciplinary 4 || proceedings, where the officers’ conduct was considered to be contrary to LAPD 5 || policy. 6 The City contends that absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities 7 of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of 8 |j unnecessary and undue disclosure by one or more of the many attorneys, secretaries, 9 || law clerks, paralegals and expert witnesses involved in this case, as well as the 10 corollary risk of embarrassment, harassment and professional and legal harm on the 11 || part of the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and information. The unfettered 12 disclosure of the materials and information, absent a protective order, would allow the 13 || media to share this information with potential jurors in the area, impacting the rights 14 || of Defendant herein to receive a fair trial. 15 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 16 ||resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 17 || protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 18 || parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 19 |lin the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 20 || the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 21 || is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 22 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 23 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 24 || why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 25 The parties therefore stipulate that there is Good Cause for, and hereby jointly 26 || request that the honorable Court issue a Protective Order regarding confidential 27 documents consistent with the terms and provisions of this Stipulation, However, the 28 entry of a Protective Order by the Court pursuant to this Stipulation shall not be

1 || construed as any ruling by the Court on the aforementioned legal statements or 2 |\privilege claims in this section, no shall this section be construed as part of any such 3 || Court Order, The City has not publicly released the documents, video or information 4 ||referenced above except under protective order or pursuant to court order, if at all. 5 642. DEFINITIONS 7 2.1 Action: Vincent Turrey vy. City of Los Angeles, et al. 22-cv-05492- 8 || MCS-MRWx. 9 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 10 || of information or items under this Order. 11 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 12 |i how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 13 || under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 14 || Cause Statement. 15 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 16 ||support staff). 17 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 18 || items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 19 || “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 21 ||the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 22 ||among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 23 || generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vincent Turrey v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-turrey-v-city-of-los-angeles-cacd-2023.