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)

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 [phone]

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 [phone]

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 [phone]

HURRELL CANTRALL LLP

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-