Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV44756, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44756    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 10, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for In-Camera Inspection

Moving Party: Plaintiff Jane Doe

Responding Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff Jane Doe sued Defendant County of Los Angeles seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has wrongfully seized her cell phone data in violation of the California Constitution.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves for in-camera review of a thumb drive that contains Plaintiff’s cell phone data. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has refused to produce the drive in discovery because it is only readable on software called Cellebrite, used exclusively by law enforcement. Plaintiff asks the Court to inspect the drive to determine “whether Cellebrite Forensic Software is in fact stored on the same thumb drive or disk containing Plaintiff’s private electronic data and whether or not Cellebrite Forensic Software is removable from the thumb drive or disk.”

Plaintiff does not provide authority for this request, nor does Plaintiff establish good cause for in-camera review. Plaintiff’s reply asserts there is good cause, but the reasons Plaintiff provides are contradictory. Plaintiff states she “does not care whether the data are readable. Rather, a newly invented theory that was never raised in the federal lawsuit is that Cellebrite Forensic Software is stored on the same USB drive containing Plaintiff’s cell phone content which becomes a newly fabricated excuse for the County to refuse to return Plaintiff’s cell phone data (Plaintiff did not request the delivery of thumb drive or proprietary software).”

It appears that Plaintiff wants the Court to determine if LASD lied about whether Cellebrite is on the thumb drive. This is not good cause for in camera review.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.