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.

Quezada v. City of Los Angeles

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 23, 2018

Armando Quezada, Catalina De Quezada, R.V., M.Q., and A.Q.C, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LAPD CHIEF CHARLES BECK, individually and in his official capacity, LAPD DETECTIVE JUAN TOPETE, #27454, individually and in his official capacity, LAPD OFFICER GABRIEL BUCKNELL, #35961, individually and in his official capacity, LAPD OFFICER BRISCOE, #39133, individually and in his official capacity, LAPD OFFICER LUKE BENNETT, #38384, individually and in his official capacity, LAPD OFFICER MIRANDA, #39874, individually and in his official capacity, LAPD DETECTIVE WILBUR, #33756, individually and in his official capacity, LAPD DETECTIVE MUNOZ, #27719, individually and in his official capacity, AND DOES 1-20, Defendants.

          ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, Boris Treyzon, Esq. Meagan Melanson, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney, THOMAS H. PETERS, Chief Assistant City Attorney CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City Attorney

          OTIS D. WRIGHT, JUDGE.

          PROTECTIVE ORDER

          PATRICK J. WALSH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

         Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 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

         The Los Angeles Police Department conducted a non-categorical use of force investigation and internal affairs investigation, both internal investigations, into this matter. As part of the investigation compelled statements were taken from police officers. Such information is obtained through the administrative investigation of this matter by the LAPD and maintained as confidential peace officer personnel records and utilized for administrative issues. A protective order is appropriate for this information and related documents as such internal investigations can be used to ascertain if police policies and procedures in such areas as supervision, training, tactics, policies, etc., should be modified. These internal investigations are an essential aid to providing a critical, self-evaluation of LAPD officers and policies and accordingly serve the residents of Los Angeles.

         Police reports, a 911 call, police radio communication and documents describing said information, were also generated as part of the incident. These documents and audio contain confidential, personal information for unrelated third-parties. A protective order is appropriate for this information and all third-party information, to protect their privacy and prevent embarrassment or humiliation for persons not involved in this litigation.

         Unrelated LAPD use of force investigations and internal affairs complaint investigations may, at some point, also be produced as a part of discovery in this litigation. For identical reasons as those listed in the first paragraph of this section, a protective order is appropriate for any such information which may be produced as a part of this litigation.

         Finally, medical records for Plaintiff may be produced as discovery in this litigation. Any medical records would inherently contain confidential, private information. A protective order is appropriate for any medical records produced in this litigation to prevent humiliation, embarrassment and a breach of confidential medical information.

         2. DEFINITIONS

         2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, Armando Quezada, v. City of Los Angeles,, CV15-07382-ODW-PJWx.

         2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order.

         2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement.

         2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff).

         2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

         2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

         2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel.

         2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

         2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

         2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs).

         2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or ...


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.