Zeeshan H. Khan v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 7, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-03289·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-03289-CAS-MAR Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:185

1 Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney DENISE C. MILLS, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 191992) 2 denise.mills@lacity.org 200 North Main Street, 6th Floor, City Hall East 3 Los Angeles, California 90012 Phone: 213-978-6954 4 DANIEL S. ROBERTS, Bar No. 205535 5 droberts@colehuber.com NICOLE R. ROGGEVEEN, Bar No. 252587 6 nroggeveen@colehuber.com ADRIAN VERDUZCO, Bar No. 336027 7 averduzco@colehuber.com COLE HUBER LLP 8 3401 Centrelake Drive, Suite 670 Ontario, California 91761 9 Telephone: (909) 230-4209 Facsimile: (909) 937-2034 10 Attorneys for Defendants City of Los 11 Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, and Chief Michel Moore 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14

15 ZEESHAN H. KHAN, CHRISTINA Case No. 2:21-cv-03289 CAS (MARx) 16 ASTORGA, and RINGO CHIU,

17 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 18 v. Referred for Discovery Purposes to the 19 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS Honorable Margo A. Rocconi ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, ; AARON GREEN, and DOES 1-10, 21 Defendants. 22

23 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 26 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 27 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 28 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 00082680.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00082680.2 2 PLL REBUH ELOC 076 ETIUS ,EVIRD EKALERTNEC 1043 16719 AINROFILAC ,OIRATNO Case 2:21-cv-03289-CAS-MAR Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:186 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. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the Los Angeles Police Department on the one side and on the other side Plaintiffs Zeeshan Khan, Christina Astorga, and Ringo Chiu ("Plaintiffs"), private citizens, who are claiming damages from the City and its police officer for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, emotional distress, mental suffering, and other unspecified general damages allegedly caused by Defendants. Defendants will seek in this action discovery of various information relating to Plaintiffs' damages claims, including employment and medical information that may be very personal, private, and potentially embarrassing to them if it were to be unnecessarily disseminated. Plaintiffs are seeking materials and information that Defendant the City of Los Angeles (including its Police Department) maintains as confidential, such as personnel files of police officers, Internal Affairs materials and information, Force Investigation Division materials and information 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. Some of this information may also implicate the privacy rights of persons not party to this lawsuit. Plaintiff is also seeking official information contained in the personnel files of the police officers involved in the subject incident, which the City maintains as strictly confidential and which the City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00082680.2 3 PLL REBUH ELOC 076 ETIUS ,EVIRD EKALERTNEC 1043 16719 AINROFILAC ,OIRATNO Case 2:21-cv-03289-CAS-MAR Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:187 believes needs special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. The parties therefore stipulate that some of the information into which discovery will be sought in this case is protected by various parties' and (third parties') privacy rights under state and federal law. In addition, the confidentiality of the materials and information sought by Plaintiff is recognized by California and federal law. The City has not publicly released such materials 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. THIS STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES RECORDINGS FROM OFFICERS' BODY-WORN CAMERAS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY AGREED BY THE PARTIES IN A SEPARATE WRITING, OR AS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT. Absent a protective order delineating the responsibilities of nondisclosure on the part of the parties hereto, there is a specific risk of unnecessary and 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 Plaintiffs, Defendants, other LAPD officers, and non-party civilians who may be referenced in the materials and information. 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00082680.2 4 PLL REBUH ELOC 076 ETIUS ,EVIRD EKALERTNEC 1043 16719 AINROFILAC ,OIRATNO Case 2:21-cv-03289-CAS-MAR Document 45 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:188 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.

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

Zeeshan H. Khan v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)