Sandra Blount v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 86

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm re Stipulation for Protective Order 82 (jm)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SANDRA BLOUNT, aka SANDRA CASTRO, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND DOES 1 ) through 100, Inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) CASE NO.: CV13-08672 DDP (FFMx) Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, Ctrm. 3, 2nd Fl. Mag. Frederick F. Mumm, Ctrm. E, 9th Fl. [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Whereas counsel for the parties have discussed the mutual exchange of 17 documents in this litigation, Defendants, through their counsel of record, have agreed 18 to produce certain confidential information in this litigation, and therefore, the parties 19 have stipulated to the following terms and conditions, the Court hereby orders as 20 follows: 21 1. In accordance with the above-referenced agreement, the City of Los 22 Angeles has agreed to produce copies of the following documents after the Court has 23 issued a protective order in this matter:1 24 25 26 27 1 Judge Mumm previously issued a Protective Order and Amended Protective Order, but the terms of said Orders do not encompass the documents referenced herring 28 herein (FFM). (See PACER Nos. 53 and 59) 1 1 (a) Work Evaluations from the personnel file of former LAPD Officer 2 Alejandro Arredondo (who was involved in the subject incident) which relate to 3 allegations of unauthorized (excessive) force and any documents from the 4 personnel file which support Plaintiff’s contention former LAPD Officer 5 Alejandro Arredondo no longer works for the LAPD due to an incident involving 6 excessive force, false/misleading statements or unlawful detention/arrest; 7 (b) Internal Affairs Investigations which include allegations against 8 former LAPD Officer Alejandro Arredondo regarding false and misleading 9 statements, false arrest/false imprisonment and unauthorized (excessive) force in 10 relation to incidents which occurred during the five-year period of time preceding 11 the November 6, 2010 detention of Plaintiff, which gives rise to this litigation; 12 (c) If any of the documents referenced herein at Paragraph 1(b) include 13 recorded statements which are available, Plaintiff may purchase those statements 14 by remitting payment to the Los Angeles Police Department in the amount of 15 $10.00 per CD rom. The City will inform Plaintiff as to the number of CD-roms 16 required for the duplication process, following a written request by Plaintiff's 17 counsel. 18 19 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2. The Los Angeles Police Department has possession, custody and control 20 of the personnel file of former LAPD Officer Alejandro Arredondo. 21 3. Thus far, the City has been unable to obtain authorization from the former 22 employee, Alejandro Arredondo, to accept service of the Plaintiff’s First Amended 23 Complaint and Summons. 24 4. The personnel file for former LAPD Officer Alejandro Arredondo 25 contains his last known address, social security number and date of birth. The City and 26 LAPD maintain that this information is confidential in nature and not subject to 27 disclosure through the normal course of discovery in a civil or criminal action. 28 5. The Department strives to maintain the confidentiality of an officer's 2 1 personnel package and Administrative Investigations, and the information contained 2 therein, in recognition of the protections granted pursuant to Penal Code § § 832.5, 3 832.7, and 832.8 and 1040 et al. of the California Evidence Code. 4 6. The federal courts have recognized the strong interest in protecting the 5 dissemination of an officer’s personal information in civil litigation. (See Dowling v. 6 American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423 (9th Cir. 1992); Kerr v. United States 7 District Court, 511 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1975; aff. 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 8 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)); Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 9 1991); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Martinez v. 10 Stockton, 132 F.R.D. 677 (E.D. Cal. 1990); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 11 (N.D. Cal. 1987); United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2625, 105 12 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989); and Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 297-298 (C.D. Cal. 13 1992).) 14 15 TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 7. If the Protective Order is issued, Defendants will produce the 16 above-referenced information and the supplemental discovery response will be marked 17 in one of the following ways: “Confidential,” “Confidential Documents,” 18 “Confidential Material,” “Subject to Protective Order” or words of similar effect. 19 Documents, writings, or other tangible items, so designated, and all information 20 derived therefrom (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “Confidential Information”), 21 shall be treated in accordance with the terms of this stipulation and protective order. 22 8. Confidential Information may be used by the persons receiving such 23 information only for the purpose of attempting to locate and serve former LAPD 24 Officer Alejandro Arredondo with the First Amended Complaint and Summons and/or 25 a deposition subpoena (F.R.C.P. 45). 26 9. Subject to the further conditions imposed by this stipulation, Confidential 27 Information may be disclosed only to the following persons: 28 (a) Counsel for the Plaintiff, his process server and investigator. 3 1 10. Any proof of service which is filed and which contains any protected 2 information will be sealed by way of this Stipulation and Protective Order to be issued 3 by the Court. 4 11. Upon the final termination of this litigation in either the United States 5 District Court (Central District of California), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or 6 Los Angeles County Superior Court, all Confidential Information and all copies 7 thereof shall be returned to the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office within fourteen (14) 8 calendar days along with written confirmation from Plaintiff's counsel that all materials 9 are being returned pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation and the District Court's 10 order on this Stipulation. 11 12. If Plaintiff’s counsel receives a subpoena or other request seeking 12 Confidential Information identified herein, he or she shall immediately give written 13 notice to the Defendants’ counsel, identifying the Confidential Information sought and 14 the time in which production or other disclosure is required, and shall object to the 15 request or subpoena on the grounds of this stipulation so as to afford the Defendants an 16 opportunity to obtain an order barring production or other disclosure, or to otherwise 17 respond to the subpoena or other request for production or disclosure of Confidential 18 Material. Other than objecting on the grounds of this stipulation, no party shall be 19 obligated to seek an order barring production of Confidential Information, which 20 obligation shall be borne by the Defendants. However, in no event should production 21 or disclosure be made without written approval by the Defendants’ counsel unless 22 required by court order arising from a motion to compel production or disclosure of 23 Confidential Information. 24 13. Any pleadings, motions, briefs, declarations, stipulations, exhibits or other 25 written submissions to the Court in this litigation which contain, reflect, incorporate or 26 refer to Confidential Information shall be submitted with an application that the 27 document be filed and maintained under seal either pursuant to Ex Parte 28 Application and Order of the Court or Stipulation of the parties and Order of the 4 1 Court. (Local Rule 79-5, et seq.). Good cause for the under seal filing must be 2 shown. If a document or pleading submitted to the Court, as described in this 3 paragraph, makes only a general reference to any document or information contained 4 therein covered by this protective order, but does not quote or describe its contents in 5 any specific way, and does not include the protected document itself, then the party or 6 parties need not enter into a Stipulation or otherwise seek an order to file the 7 documents under seal. In entering into a Stipulation for the filing of Confidential 8 Information under seal, neither one of the parties waives its right to object to the 9 admissibility of said information in connection with that proceeding or to move to 10 exclude said information prior to or during the time of trial. 11 14. The parties agree that the spirit of confidentiality as protected in this order 12 will apply to all proceedings. To that end, before any protected document or any 13 information derived therefrom is to be put forward, admitted into evidence, discussed 14 in detail or otherwise publicized in Court, the party raising the protected document will 15 inform the other parties and allow for a motion to the Court to close the proceedings to 16 the public. 17 15. Nothing herein shall prejudice any party’s rights to object to the 18 introduction of any Confidential Information into evidence, on grounds including but 19 not limited to relevance and privilege. 20 16. During the course of depositions, when counsel makes an objection to a 21 question concerning a protected document or information contained therein, which is 22 the subject of this Stipulation and protective order, or concerning a general area that 23 counsel believes should be covered by the scope of this Stipulation and protective 24 order, those witnesses (as identified in Paragraph 3(a) herein) may answer the question, 25 without waiving the objections, and the questions and answers to those questions will 26 be sealed and covered by the terms of this protective order. Counsel and the parties 27 reserve the right to object to the disclosure of confidential or private information which 28 is not the subject of this Stipulation and protective order. Any documents deemed 5 1 confidential pursuant to this protective order will be sealed, if they are used as exhibits 2 in any deposition. This agreement does not waive any objections counsel may make, 3 including objections unrelated to the reasons for this protective order. 4 17. Each person receiving or reviewing Confidential Information must 5 consent to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of 6 California, including the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, with respect to any 7 proceeding relating to enforcement of this Order, including, without limitation, any 8 proceeding for contempt and/or monetary sanctions 9 18. Plaintiff agrees to meet and confer with defense counsel no later than 10 45 days prior to the Pre-Trial Conference with regard to any intention to attempt 11 to introduce confidential information at the time of trial. 12 19. This Stipulation may be signed in sub-parts and may be transmitted by 13 facsimile as if it was the original document. Defendants will lodge this executed 14 Stipulation with the Court for approval. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: December 22, 2014 18 19 20 By: /S/ FREDERICK F. MUMM HONORABLE FREDERICK F. MUMM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?