Damion Trotter v. County of Los Angeles, 2:20-cv-07993

Background

Plaintiff Damion Trotter sued County of Los Angeles; parties stipulated to a Protective Order covering discovery materials the County deems confidential.
County sought protection for internal administrative and law‑enforcement materials (including materials used in deputy disciplinary proceedings) that it keeps non‑public.
The parties agreed the order limits disclosure/use of "CONFIDENTIAL" materials to litigation purposes and defines categories of persons who may receive them (counsel, certain employees, experts, court personnel, vendors, witnesses under conditions).
The Order prescribes labeling/designation procedures, a meet‑and‑confer and burden framework for challenges, and procedures for inadvertent production and subpoenas in other litigation.
Sealing follow Local Civil Rule 79‑5 and Ninth Circuit standards: good cause for nondispositive filings and compelling reasons for dispositive motions/trial materials; redaction required when feasible.
Duration: protections run until final disposition (appeals exhausted); trial use may render materials public; post‑case return/destroy obligations (60 days) with limited archival exceptions for counsel; violations may incur sanctions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery may be subject to protective treatment	Trotter seeks discovery but accepts narrow confidentiality where justified	County argues certain internal records are confidential and need protection to prevent harm and undue publicity	Court entered stipulated Protective Order defining CONFIDENTIAL info and limiting use to the litigation
Standard and procedure for sealing materials filed with the court	Trotter must follow sealing rules and show justification when seeking to seal	County emphasizes need to seal certain records but must meet local and Ninth Circuit standards	Court required compliance with Local Rule 79‑5; good cause for nondispositive filings; compelling reasons for dispositive/trial filings; redaction when feasible
How designations and challenges operate (who bears burden)	Trotter may challenge designations via meet‑and‑confer and court motion	County bears burden to justify confidentiality; cautions against mass/overbroad designations	Order requires careful, limited designations; Designating Party bears persuasion burden; designated status maintained until court rules
Handling inadvertent privileged production and subpoenas in other litigation	Trotter must return/protect privileged material if County asserts privilege	County may claw back privileged material and seek protection from other courts; must bear cost of seeking protection there	Order follows FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) procedures for inadvertent production; requires notice/cooperation if subpoenaed elsewhere and allows Designating Party to seek protection
Post‑case disposition and retention by counsel	Trotter must return or destroy Protected Material on request after final disposition	County allows counsel to keep archival copies but wants them treated as protected	Receiving parties must return/destroy within 60 days after request; counsel may retain archival copies which remain subject to the Order

Key Cases Cited

Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1975) (recognition of confidentiality for certain law‑enforcement/internal records)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (compelling‑reasons standard for sealing materials filed in connection with dispositive motions or trial)
Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (good‑cause standard for sealing discovery materials and limits on blanket protection)
Makar‑Welbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (stipulated protective orders still require good cause for sealing)
Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (reiterating standards for sealing and that compelling reasons required for merits‑related records)