Norma Segovia v. City of Los Angeles, 2:23-cv-00415

Background

Plaintiffs Norma Segovia and Isaac Aleman seek discovery from the City of Los Angeles, including LAPD video/audio recordings, administrative materials, and other information relating to the incident at issue.
The City contends those materials are confidential under California and federal law (citing Penal Code § 832.7 and Kerr) and that uncontrolled disclosure risks harassment, prejudice to officers, and impairment of fair trial rights.
The parties stipulated to a Protective Order governing designation, handling, disclosure, challenge procedure, inadvertent production, and post-case disposition of material designated "CONFIDENTIAL." The stipulation expressly does not decide privilege claims or legal entitlement to confidentiality.
The Order defines key terms (Protected Material, Producing/Receiving Party, Experts, House Counsel, Professional Vendors), limits use of Protected Material to this litigation, and restricts disclosure to defined categories of persons who sign an acknowledgment (Exhibit A).
Filing under seal is not automatic: parties must follow Local Rule 79-5 and Ninth Circuit standards (good cause for non-dispositive filings; compelling reasons for dispositive motions or trial exhibits); redaction is required when feasible.
The Order addresses challenges to designations (meet-and-confer, Local Rule 37.1), inadvertent production (FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) and FRE 502 principles), subpoenas in other litigation, protection for non-party materials, and return/destruction of Protected Material after final disposition (60-day rule with limited archival retention for counsel).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a protective order is justified (good cause)	Plaintiffs need access to City-held materials for prosecution of the case	City asserts statutory and case-law confidentiality for LAPD records and risk of harm from public disclosure	Parties stipulated and requested a Protective Order; entry does not resolve substantive privilege or confidentiality claims
Scope of protection (what is covered)	Plaintiffs: materials should be usable for litigation	City: protect videos, audio, personnel/disciplinary materials and derivatives	Order protects designated materials, copies, summaries, and testimony revealing them; trial use governed by trial judge and public access presumption applies at trial
Procedure and standard for filing under seal	Plaintiffs may seek sealing for confidentiality	City insists on compliance with Local Rule 79-5 and Ninth Circuit standards	Sealing requires LR 79-5 procedures; good cause for non-dispositive, compelling reasons for dispositive/trial materials; redaction preferred when feasible
Challenging confidentiality designations	Plaintiffs may challenge overbroad designations	City bears burden to justify designations	Challenges follow meet-and-confer/Local Rule 37.1; Designating Party bears persuasion burden; designation remains in force until court rules
Handling inadvertent production and subpoenas in other litigation	Plaintiffs want access; may resist clawback	City seeks clawback and protective procedures	Inadvertent production handled under FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) and FRE 502; parties must notify Designating Party of third-party subpoenas and cooperate; Designating Party must seek protection in other forum
Post-case disposition (return/destroy)	Plaintiffs may retain necessary litigation files	City requests destruction/return of confidential items	Within 60 days of written request, Receiving Parties must return or destroy Protected Material and certify compliance; counsel may retain archival copies subject to Order

Key Cases Cited

Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1975) (recognizing confidentiality interests in law-enforcement investigatory records)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (public access presumption; good cause vs. compelling reasons standards for sealing)
Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (discusses standards for protective orders and sealing)
Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring compelling reasons to seal materials attached to dispositive motions)
Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require a showing of good cause)