Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV15327, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15327    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 55

WILLIAMS v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES                             22STCV15327

Hearing Date:  1/9/22,  Dept. 55

#4:   MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE DEPUTY VIDEOS FROM YOU TUBE AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA OF PLAINTIFF.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Defendant COUNTY OF L.A.

RP:  Plaintiff

Summary

On 5/9/22, Plaintiff JAMAAL WILLIAMS filed a Complaint alleging that, without justification, Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputies forced Plaintiff from his car to the ground, handcuffed and arrested him, and said they were looking for a robbery suspect who was an African American male, but it was not Plaintiff.

The counts are:

                    I.            UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CIVIL CODE §§ 51 et seq.

                 II.            TOM BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CIVIL CODE § 52.1.

              III.            BATTERY.

              IV.            NEGLIGENCE.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order directing Plaintiff to remove deputy video from you tube and other social media of Plaintiff, and imposing monetary sanctions, on grounds including the following:

·         Despite a Protective Order having been signed, Plaintiff continues to post and circulate, with the knowledge of his counsel, body camera video of the incident that is the subject of this lawsuit, and said video has been spliced and reposted to convey a different version – Plaintiff’s assertion of racial profiling and rogue policing.

·         The deputies’ images, names, and employee numbers with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department are included in the postings and continued postings.

·         This poses a continuing threat to the deputies’ safety, as they remain employed with the LASD and continue to patrol the area in which this incident occurred.

·         The inappropriate and dangerous postings are also an invasion of the deputies’ Constitutional rights to privacy.

·         Judges are empowered to exercise control over case procedures.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         At the time that defense counsel provided the video, no Protective Order was in place between the parties, and no documents or videos provided by Defendants were designated as “Confidential.”

·         The later stipulated protective order of 11/14/22 requires designation of confidential material, which defense counsel never did.

·         The administrator of YouTube delayed removing the video after Plaintiff’s requests until 12/13/22.

·         Plaintiff has removed the posts from all social media that he can remember and that he has control over.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is ordered off calendar, as moot.

According to opposing party, the video has been removed from YouTube and other social media, and Plaintiff intends to fully cooperate in complying with the stipulated protective order.

“Mootness is sometimes defined in terms of the court's loss of ability to grant effective relief.”  Breaux v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 730, 743.

Parties are permitted to stipulate to confidentiality of information to be exchanged.   Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Newman & Holtzinger (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1209.  Parties often choose to enter into stipulated protective orders permitting limited use of discovered information deemed to contain confidential or proprietary information, to avoid the need for court rulings.  Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 317-18.

"[I]nherent power entitles trial courts to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected with pending litigation, including discovery matters, in order to insure the orderly administration of justice."  Asbestos Claims Facility v. Berry & Berry (1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 9, 19, disapproved on other grounds by  Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 896.

Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4^th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.  Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment of past acts, but instead are used to encourage a fair discovery processes. Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 1161, 1183;  McGinty v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 204, 214;  Midwife v.  Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64, superseded on other grounds as stated in  Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971.