United States District Court, C.D. California
CLARA L. BARILLAS, JUAN J. BARILLAS and RUBY E. BARILLAS, both Individually and as Successors in Interest to JUAN A. BARILLAS Plaintiffs,
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE MICHAEL MONTOYA, an individual, DETECTIVE CORBIN RHEAULT, an individual, and DOES DEFENDANTS.
MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney KATHLEEN A. KENEALY, Chief
Assistant City Attorney, SCOTT MARCUS, Chief, Civil
Litigation Branch, CORY M. BRENTE, Senior Assistant City
Attorney, COLLEEN R. SMITH, Deputy City Attorney, Attorneys
for Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE MICHAEL MONTOYA, and DETECTIVE CORBIN
K. Galipo Eric Valenzuela Attorneys for Plaintiff, ARACELI
FLORES, et al.
E. SWEENEY, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, CLARA BARILLAS, et
GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORP., DAVID GHARKHANIAN, JR., ESQ.
MANEE PAZARGAD, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff, CLARA BARILLAS,
Cormac J. Carney, Judge.
HONORABLE ALKA SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS
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.
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.
GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT
action involves the City of Los Angeles and members of the
Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiff is seeking materials
and information that Defendants the City of Los Angeles et
al. (“City”) maintains as confidential, such as
personnel files of the police officers involved in this
incident, Internal Affairs materials and information, video
recordings, audio recordings, 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. 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
believes need special protection from public disclosure and
from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this
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). The City has not
publicly released the materials and information referenced
above 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.
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.
City also 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.
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 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.
Action: this matter currently pending in
federal court entitled, Clara Barillas, et al. v. City of
Los Angeles, et al. CV18-08740 CJC (ASx) (which includes
the consolidated case of Araceli Flores v. City of Los
Angeles, et al., CV18-09936 CJC (ASx).)
Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party
that challenges the designation of information or items under
“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.
This also includes (1) any information copied or extracted
from the Confidential information; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, abstracts or compilations of Confidential
information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or
presentations that might reveal Confidential information.
Counsel: Counsel of record for the parties
to this civil litigation and their support staff.
Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party
that designates information or items that it produces in
disclosures or in responses to discovery as
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
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.
Final Disposition: when this Action has
been fully and completely terminated by way of settlement,
dismissal, trial, appeal and/or remand to state court.
House Counsel: attorneys other than Counsel
(as defined in paragraph 2.4) and who are employees of a
party to this Action.
Non-Party: any natural person, partnership,
corporation, association or other legal entity not named as a
Party to this action.
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 that has appeared on behalf of
that party, and includes support staff.
Party: any party to this Action, including
all of its officers, directors, boards, departments,
divisions, employees, consultants, retained experts, and