Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lombardo Palacios and co-plaintiffs sued the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Department personnel in the Central District of California, and the action was consolidated with Case No. 2:25-cv-10378-SPG-ADS. The caption identifies District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. On November 6, 2026, the parties jointly stipulated to and petitioned the court to enter a Stipulated Protective Order, and Magistrate Judge Spaeth signed the order the same day.
The order explains that discovery in the action is likely to involve confidential, proprietary, or private information, including medical records; police reports and evidence; investigation reports and evidence; potentially peace officer personnel materials; personnel files of the officers involved in the incident; Internal Affairs materials; video and audio recordings; photographs; and other administrative materials. The parties represented that the City maintains these materials as confidential and that disclosure could implicate privacy, safety, and fair-trial interests, citing California Penal Code section 832.7 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
The order is expressly limited: it does not confer blanket protection on all discovery, does not itself authorize filing under seal (which remains governed by Civil Local Rule 79-5), and does not govern use of protected material at trial, which remains subject to the trial judge's orders.
The Court’s Holding
The court entered the Stipulated Protective Order for good cause shown. Under the order, a producing party may designate qualifying material as 'CONFIDENTIAL,' but only as to specific material that qualifies under Rule 26(c); mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited and may expose the designating party to sanctions. Designations must be made before disclosure or production, using the 'CONFIDENTIAL' legend on documents, on containers for other media, or on the record for deposition testimony, and an inadvertent failure to designate does not by itself waive protection if timely corrected.
The order restricts use of protected material to prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the action, requires secure storage, and limits disclosure to specified categories such as counsel of record, party personnel reasonably needing the material, experts and consultants who sign the acknowledgment, the court and its personnel, court reporters, and witnesses at deposition under conditions. Any party may challenge a designation, must follow the meet-and-confer process, and the designating party bears the burden of persuasion; until the court rules, the material retains its designated protection.
The order also addresses material subpoenaed in other litigation, non-party confidential material, unauthorized disclosure, and inadvertent production of privileged material. Confidentiality obligations survive final disposition until the designating party agrees otherwise in writing or a court orders otherwise. After final disposition, within sixty days of a written request by the designating party, each receiving party must return or destroy all protected material and submit a written certification identifying what was returned or destroyed and affirming that no copies or reproductions were retained, though counsel may keep archival copies that remain subject to the order. Violations may be punished by contempt or monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The protective order is a party-driven discovery framework, not a blanket secrecy order: protection extends only to material that qualifies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and unjustified mass designations can trigger sanctions.
- Protected material may be used only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this action, and disclosure is confined to enumerated categories of persons, including counsel, experts who sign the acknowledgment, the court, and deposition witnesses under conditions.
- Challenges to confidentiality designations follow Local Rule 37.1 meet-and-confer procedures, with the burden of persuasion on the designating party and continued protection pending the court's ruling.
- The order does not authorize sealing; any request to file protected material under seal must separately satisfy Civil Local Rule 79-5, and use of protected material at trial remains governed by the trial judge.
- After final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material within sixty days of a written request and certify compliance, while archival copies retained by counsel remain subject to the order.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how federal courts in police-misconduct litigation balance discovery access against privacy, personnel-record confidentiality, and fair-trial concerns, particularly where LAPD personnel files, Internal Affairs materials, and recordings are sought. It also shows the practical limits of stipulated protective orders: they govern discovery handling but leave sealing to Civil Local Rule 79-5 and trial use to the trial judge.
For practitioners, the order is a reminder that protective-order terms are enforceable through contempt and sanctions, that designation must be specific and made in good faith, and that post-judgment return, destruction, and certification obligations require tracking even after the case ends.