Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nelson v. City of Los Angeles

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 18, 2017

FLOYD HILLS NELSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants.

          Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez

          PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

          HONORABLE JEAN P. ROSENBLUTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The parties having met and conferred, hereby stipulate to the following terms and conditions, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby orders as follows:

         GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff Floyd Hills Nelson, is seeking materials and information that Defendants City of Los Angeles, David Friedrich, Diana Herron, Jeff Nolte and Gustavo Ramirez (“City Defendants”) maintain as confidential, such as the Force Investigation Division (“FID”) Report of the Officer Involved Shooting from this incident, personnel files of the police officers involved in this incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video recordings and other administrative materials and information currently in the possession of the City Defendants and which the City Defendants believe 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 police officers, including but not limited to Detectives David Friedrich, Diana Herron and Gustavo Ramirez and Captain Jeff Nolte, which the City Defendants maintain as strictly confidential and which the City Defendants believe need special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation;

         WHEREAS, the City Defendants assert 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 Defendants have not publicly released the materials and information referenced above except under protective order or pursuant to court order, if at all;

         WHEREAS, 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, 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 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, possibly impacting the rights of the City Defendants herein to receive a fair trial;

         STIPULATION

         Accordingly, the parties stipulate as follows:

         1. City Defendants (hereinafter “Disclosing Party(ies)”) may designate as confidential any FID material from this OIS, 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 FRCivP 26(g), 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 confidential portions of the material, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.