Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Yesenia Torres, an individual, sued the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-06518-RGK-SK. The operative complaint arises from an alleged June 14, 2025 incident, and the stipulating parties anticipated that discovery would require production of confidential, proprietary, and private information. On October 14, 2026, the court entered Document 30, a stipulated protective order jointly submitted by the plaintiff, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles; Does 1 through 10 are named defendants but did not sign or join the stipulation.
In the stipulation's good-cause statement, the parties explained that discovery would involve non-public material relating to the June 14, 2025 incident, personnel files and records of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles Police Department officers, departmental policies, practices, procedures, and training materials, sensitive information about third parties, records pertaining to criminal prosecutions, and the plaintiff's medical history. The parties represented that this material is protected by the Official Information Privilege, federal and California constitutional privacy rights, and various California Government, Penal, and Evidence Code sections.
The parties asked the court to enter the order to expedite the flow of information, facilitate prompt resolution of confidentiality disputes, protect information they are entitled to keep confidential, and serve the ends of justice. United States Magistrate Judge Steve Kim found good cause shown and ordered the stipulation entered, with modifications noted on the face of the document.
The Court’s Holding
The order defines "CONFIDENTIAL" information or items as discovery material that qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and extends protection to copies, excerpts, summaries, compilations, and testimony that might reveal protected material. It expressly does not confer blanket protection on all discovery responses, and it does not entitle any party to file confidential information under seal; sealing remains governed by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Designations must be limited to specific qualifying material, and mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited and may expose the designating party to sanctions.
A receiving party may use protected material only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this action, and may disclose it only to enumerated categories: outside counsel of record and their staff, party officers, directors, and employees, retained experts and consultants who sign an acknowledgment to be bound, the court and its personnel, court reporters, witnesses during depositions, and mediators. Any party may challenge a confidentiality designation at any time consistent with the scheduling order, with the burden of persuasion on the designating party; pending a ruling, the material retains its designated protection. The order also sets procedures for inadvertent disclosure, inadvertent production of privileged material, and subpoenas in other litigation.
The order's protections do not extend beyond the commencement of trial, at which point designated material becomes presumptively public absent compelling reasons shown to the trial judge. Even after final disposition, however, confidentiality obligations remain in effect until the designating party agrees otherwise in writing or a court orders otherwise. Within 60 days of a written request after final disposition, each receiving party must return or destroy all protected material and certify compliance, though counsel may retain archival copies that remain subject to the order. Violations may be punished by contempt or monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The court, through Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, entered the stipulated protective order on October 14, 2026, finding good cause for protection of sensitive discovery material.
- Only the plaintiff, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles joined the stipulation; Does 1 through 10 are named defendants but did not sign it.
- Designations must be specific and made in good faith; mass or indiscriminate "CONFIDENTIAL" designations are prohibited and sanctionable.
- Protected material may be used solely for this litigation and disclosed only to the categories listed in Section 7, most of whom must sign the acknowledgment in Exhibit A.
- The order does not authorize filing under seal; parties must separately comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, and confidentiality obligations survive final disposition with return-or-destroy certification duties.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how the Central District of California manages discovery in cases involving law-enforcement records and personal medical information, balancing the public's interest in open proceedings against privacy and privilege interests. By incorporating the Kamakana standard, it preserves a presumption of public access once the case reaches trial while keeping pretrial discovery confidential. For practitioners, it confirms that stipulated protective orders in this district remain subject to the stricter sealing standards of Civil Local Rule 79-5 and that confidentiality designations carry continuing obligations even after the litigation ends.