Adam Neuwirth v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 25

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish re Amendment (Motion related), 24 (dml)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 11 ADAM NEUWIRTH, 300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 426-2000 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 10 Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES 15 COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY and DOES 1 through 100 16 Defendants. 17 18 CASE NO. 2:16-cv-09069-JAK (GJSx) [Assigned to Hon. John A. Kronstadt, Courtroom “10B”] DISCOVERY MATTER [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM ATTENDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF RAE MATTEY AND DILLON JORDAN Action Filed: 11/7/16 Trial Date: 03/6/18 19 20 TO ALL THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 21 After full consideration of the Amended Stipulation by the parties for a 22 Protective Order filed on June 9, 2017, and FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS 23 HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Pursuant to Federal Rules Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(E), ADAM 25 NEUWIRTH (“plaintiff”) is precluded from being present, in any capacity, at the 26 taking of the depositions of the following third-party individuals: 27 a) Rae Mattey 28 b) Dillon Jordan 1 2. Good cause exists for the entry of this protective order under Federal 2 Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) which states in pertinent part: (1) In General. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. . . .The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: . . . (E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted; . . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 426-2000 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 11 3. That the taking of these depositions is likely to implicate privacy 12 protections afforded to the prospective deponents. Specifically, the individuals from 13 whom defendants seek deposition testimony have an interest in being free from 14 annoyance, harassment, or retaliation in relation to their involvement in this case or 15 the underlying criminal matter which is the subject of this case. 16 4. That the third-parties and the plaintiff have historically been unable to 17 act civilly with respect to one another and that this order is necessary for the comfort 18 of these witnesses and in an effort to obtain candid deposition testimony unaffected 19 by plaintiff’s presence. 20 5. Further that with respect to at least one of the prospective deponents, 21 there is a Domestic Violence Prevention Restraining Order (“Restraining Order”) in 22 place against plaintiff which does not expire until the year 2019. 23 6. That pursuant to the terms of that Restraining Order, plaintiff is not to 24 contact, either directly or indirectly, by any means, the prospective deponent or be in 25 the immediate vicinity of the deponent restricted to the ordered-upon geographic 26 limits. 27 7. That the other prospective deponent may have had a critical role in 28 securing the Restraining Order, and this individual too should be similarly protected. -2- 1 8. That permitting plaintiff to attend the aforementioned depositions 2 would violate the Restraining Order and constitute the type of undue burden 3 contemplated by Rule 26. 4 5 APPROVED AND SO ORDERED: 6 7 8 Dated: June 12, 2017 9 ____________________________________ GAIL J. STANDISH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE (213) 426-2000 HURRELL CANTRALL LLP 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?