Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 23STCV19417, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV19417 Hearing Date: November 27, 2024 Dept: 19
EPPS v. COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, et al.
TENTATIVE RULING
After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.
The Court orders that a protective order containing the terms of the proposed protective order attached to the declaration of Marina Samson be entered.
Within five (5) court days, the Court orders counsel for Defendant County of Los Angeles to file a proposed order consistent with this ruling, including a proposed protective order.
The Court sets a Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Proposed Protective Order on December 11, 2024, at 10:30 A.M. in Department 19 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Counsel for Defendant County of Los Angeles to give notice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This action
arises out of alleged civil rights violations. Plaintiff Martrell D. Epps
(“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“COLA”),
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LACSD”); City Of Palmdale;
(“Palmdale”) LA County Sheriff’s Deputy Derderian (“Derderian”), LA County
Sheriff’s Deputy Dery Or Deri (“Dery”), LA County Sheriff’s Deputy Williams
(“Williams”), LA County Sheriff’s Sergeant Yils Or Yels (“Yils”), and LA County
Sheriff’s Deputy Y Listy (“Listy”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the
following causes of action:
Defendant COLA filed the instant Motion for Protective Order (the “Motion”).
GROUNDS FOR MOTION
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.420, subdivision (b)(13), 2030.090, subdivision (b)(6), 2031.060, subdivision (b)(5), and 2033.080, subdivision (b)(4), Defendant COLA moves for a protective order on the grounds that ¿ Defendant should not be required to produce confidential and highly sensitive documents as well as other information until a protective order governing the use of those documents and information is entered.
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 provides that:
Unless otherwise
limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may
obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any
motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in
evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party
seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be
obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information,
tangible thing, or land or other property.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.010.)
However, Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020, subdivision (a) provides as follows:
The court shall
limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or
intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the
information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court
may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a
party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and
confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a); see Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030(a).)
The meet and confer declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
Defendant COLA contends that a protective order is warranted with respect to its responses to the following discovery propounded by Plaintiff on August 5, 2024: (1) Plaintiff’s Demand for Identification and Production of Documents and Things, Set One; and (2) Form Interrogatories---General, Set One. (See Motion, pp. 3-5; Marina Samson Decl., ¶ 3.)
With respect to the Demand for
Identification and Production of Documents and Things, Set One,
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060 provides, in relevant part, that:
(a) When an
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things,
places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to
whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may
promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a
meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
(b) The
court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to
protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or
oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but
is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:
(1) That
all or some of the items or categories of items in the demand need not be
produced or made available at all.
(2) That
the time specified in Section 2031.260 to respond to the set of demands, or to
a particular item or category in the set, be extended.
(3) That
the place of production be other than that specified in the demand.
(4) That
the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling be made only on specified terms
and conditions.
(5) That a
trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
information not be disclosed, or be disclosed only to specified persons or only
in a specified way.
(6) That
the items produced be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court.
[….]
(g) If the
motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may
order that the party to whom the demand was directed provide or permit the
discovery against which protection was sought on terms and conditions that are
just.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(a)-(c), (g).)
Similarly, with respect to the
Form Interrogatories---General, Set One, Code of Civil Procedure section
2030.090 provides, in relevant part, that:
(a) When
interrogatories have been propounded, the responding party, and any other party
or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective
order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under
Section 2016.040.
(b) The court, for
good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party
or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance,
embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective
order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following
directions:
(1) That the set of
interrogatories, or particular interrogatories in the set, need not be
answered.
(2) That, contrary
to the representations made in a declaration submitted under Section 2030.050,
the number of specially prepared interrogatories is unwarranted.
(3) That the time
specified in Section 2030.260 to respond to the set of interrogatories, or to
particular interrogatories in the set, be extended.
(4) That the
response be made only on specified terms and conditions.
(5) That the method
of discovery be an oral deposition instead of interrogatories to a party.
(6) That a trade
secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information
not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a certain way.
(7) That some or
all of the answers to interrogatories be sealed and thereafter opened only on
order of the court.
(c) If the motion
for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that
the party provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought
on terms and conditions that are just.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.090(a)-(c).)
The concept of good cause requires a showing of specific facts demonstrating undue burden, unwarranted embarrassment, oppression, or unwarranted annoyance, and justifying the relief sought. (Goodman v. Citizens Life & Casualty Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819-820 (citing Waters v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 885, 893; Carlson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 431, 437-438).)
The granting or denial of relief lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 279-81, superseded by statute on other grounds pertaining to attorney work product privilege in Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480.)
Here, Defendant COLA filed the declaration of Marina Samson which complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.
Defendant COLA argues that its responses to Plaintiff’s Demand for Identification and Production of Documents and Things, Set One; and Form Interrogatories---General, Set One, propounded on August 5, 2024 contain confidential or private materials and that there is good cause to issue a protective order that covers such confidential or private information on the grounds that (1) the discovery responses include confidential and private information concerning Defendant COLA’s employees and third parties, including victims and witnesses, who have a right to privacy; and (2) the terms of Defendant COLA’s proposed protective order are reasonable. (Motion at pp. 5-8.)
Plaintiff argues that Defendant COLA fails to establish good cause and the Motion should be denied on the following grounds: (1) Defendant COLA fails to “state sufficient and specific facts showing good cause for relief or to set forth the specifics regarding its contention that the sought discovery would cause any “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense;” and (2) Defendant COLA fails to show that any of the information sought constitutes confidential trade secrets; (3) Plaintiff’s discovery seeks records and information deemed nonconfidential and subject to public inspection under Penal Code section 832.7, subdivision (b); (4) “just because otherwise responsive nonconfidential or non-protected information, documents or things are placed in an officer’s personnel or other file does not mean that they are suddenly protected,”; and (5) Defendant COLA fails to show that unrestricted disclosure of any of the information sought would result in any unwarranted invasion of privacy. (Motion, pp. 4-14.)
For the following reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments and finds that that Defendant COLA sufficiently establishes good cause for the issuance of the proposed protective order attached to the declaration of Marina Samson as Exhibit A
By way of the instant Motion, Defendant COLA is not seeking a protective order stating that it does not need to disclose any responsive materials, but is rather seeking an order that permits it to designate materials it believes in good faith contains non-public information or information otherwise entitled to confidential treatment so that there is no impermissible disclosure of the materials by Plaintiff that could result in a violation of individuals’ right to privacy or other harm.
The proposed protective order is substantively identical to the model “Stipulation And Protective Order – Confidential Designation Only” provided by the Los Angeles Superior Court as a template. The proposed protective order provides that Plaintiff may object to any “confidential” designation and seek appropriate relief, including the ability to share materials designated by Defendant COLA as “confidential.”
The Court finds that Defendant COLA sufficiently demonstrates that it has a good faith belief that at least some materials or information responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests contain sensitive, confidential, and/or private information, including sensitive information belonging to both Defendant COLA’s employes and third parties, such as potential victims and witnesses, as well as non-public ¿footage of deputy body-worn cameras and deputy reports of the incident. (Samson Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 9, Ex. E.) The Court finds that Defendant COLA sufficiently demonstrates that unrestricted disclosure of such information or materials would result in an intrusion into constitutionally-protected privacy rights belonging to individuals. (See, e.g., Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 16 [“Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution is an enumeration of the ‘inalienable rights’ of all Californians. ‘Privacy’ is declared to be among those rights.”]; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (citing Cal. Const., art I, § 1) [“The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy.”]; John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198.)
For the reasons stated, the
Motion is GRANTED.