Shannon Hausey v. The City of Los Angeles
2:21-cv-10006
C.D. Cal.Jul 20, 2022Background
- Parties: Shannon Hausey v. City of Los Angeles and Doe Officers; parties jointly proposed a Stipulated Protective Order entered July 2022 by Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish.
- Purpose: to protect confidential discovery likely to be produced — e.g., police investigative reports, body-worn and in-car video, audio recordings, photographs, District Attorney work product, rap sheets, confidential witness information, and other Official or deliberative process materials.
- Limited scope: protections apply only to information qualifying under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and the Order’s Good Cause Statement; blanket designations are prohibited and may draw sanctions.
- Designation & handling: documentary material must be marked "CONFIDENTIAL" (or identified on inspection); deposition designations are made on the record; non-documentary items labeled on their containers; receiving parties may disclose CONFIDENTIAL material only to specified persons (counsel, designated employees, experts who sign Exhibit A, court personnel, etc.).
- Sealing & public access: parties must follow Local Civil Rule 79‑5 and Ninth Circuit standards — good cause for non‑dispositive filings; compelling reasons for dispositive motions or trial materials; redaction preferred to full sealing where feasible.
- Duration & post‑case obligations: Order governs until final disposition (including appeals); materials used at trial presumptively become public absent compelling reasons; after final disposition receiving parties must return or destroy Protected Material within 60 days and certify compliance (counsel may retain archived work product subject to the Order).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order is warranted | Hausey: sensitive law‑enforcement and witness materials require protection from public disclosure and misuse | City: agrees protection appropriate for investigatory, personnel, and DA materials but designations should be limited | Court granted the stipulated Protective Order, finding good cause for limited protection of qualifying discovery materials |
| Standard for filing Protected Material under seal | Hausey: confidential designations should permit sealing of necessary material | City: sealing must comply with LR 79‑5 and Ninth Circuit precedent; not automatic | Court emphasized LR 79‑5; non‑dispositive filings need good cause, dispositive/trial filings need compelling reasons; redaction required when feasible |
| Proper scope and procedure for designations | Hausey: parties may designate qualifying pages/portions as CONFIDENTIAL and limit disclosure to authorized persons | City: designations must be narrow, not routine; mass designations improper and sanctionable | Court required careful, particularized designations, clear marking procedures, and preserved right to challenge under Local Rule 37 process |
| Inadvertent production & post‑case disposition | Hausey: inadvertent disclosure should not waive protection; materials returned/destroyed after case | City: follows FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) and FRE 502 clawback procedures; counsels may retain archival copies | Court adopted clawback procedure per FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) and FRE 502; ordered return/destroy within 60 days of final disposition with certification; counsel may keep archival copies subject to Order |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (strong public‑access presumption; non‑dispositive sealing requires good cause; dispositive/trial materials require compelling reasons)
- Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for sealing and handling confidential discovery materials)
- Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (compelling‑reasons standard applies to sealing materials attached to dispositive motions)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 509 (Cal. 1999) (deliberative process privilege and standards for withholding official information)
- ACLU v. Superior Court, 202 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discussion of deliberative process privilege applied to governmental materials)