United States District Court, C.D. California
ROSA NAVAS, an individual; ALFREDO NAVAS, an individual; A.N., a minor, individually and as successor in interest to Sergio Navas and by and throug his mother and Next Friend Christel Emmet; J.N., a minor, individually and as successor in interest to Sergio Navas and by and throug his mother and Next Friend Chistel Emmet; A.N., a minor, individually and as successor in interest to Sergio Navas and by and through her mother and Next Friend Christel Emmet, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipality; BRIAN VAN GORDON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION [CHANGES MADE BY COURT TO PARAGRAPHS 1, 3, 5, 10,
11, 12 AND EXHIBIT A]
HON.
JACQUELINE CHOOLJIAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
WHEREAS,
Plaintiff is seeking materials and information that Defendant
City of Los Angeles (“City”) maintains as
confidential, such as personnel files of the police officers
involved in this incident, Force Investigation Division
materials and information, Internal Affairs 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;
WHEREAS,
Plaintiff is also seeking official information contained in
the personnel files of the involved police officers, LAPD
Officers, which the City maintains as strictly confidential
and which the City believes need special protection from
public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than
prosecuting this litigation;
WHEREAS,
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);
WHEREAS,
the City has not publicly released the materials and
information referenced above except under protective order or
pursuant to court order, if at all;
WHEREAS,
the City contends 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;
WHEREAS,
the City contends that 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 the LAPD officers referenced in the materials and
information;
WHEREAS,
the City contends that 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 the City herein
to receive a fair trial.
ORDER
ON STIPULATION
The
Court, having found good cause, Orders as follows:
1.
Defendants (hereinafter “Disclosing Party(ies)”)
may designate as confidential any personnel files, videos,
Internal Affairs materials or any other materials or writing
that they, in good faith, believe is protected from
disclosure within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), in that
they believe the material contains confidential or private
information. Such materials may be classified as subject to
this protective order by marking the material, each document
or writing with a watermark that includes words such as
“Confidential, ” “Confidential Documents,
” “Confidential Material, ” “Subject
to Protective Order, ” or words of a similar effect,
and that includes the case name and case number. Materials
and writings so designated, and all privileged information
derived therefrom [hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Confidential Material”], shall be treated in
accordance with the terms of this Order. In making this
designation, the Disclosing Parties are also representing
that no portion of the materials is segregable and,
therefore, subject to production without restriction as
“Confidential.”
2.
Confidential Material may be used by the persons receiving
such information [hereinafter “Receiving
Party(ies)”] only for the purpose of litigation of this
case, and for such other purposes as permitted by law.
3. This
Order applies not only to the Confidential Material, but also
to
(1) any
information copied or extracted from the Confidential
Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries or compilations
of Confidential Material; and (3) any testimony,
conversations, or presentations by Receiving Parties that
might reveal Confidential Material, except testimony,
conversations, or presentations during a court hearing ...