Pablo Morales, Sr et al v. City of Los Angeles et al
| Carmen Morales, Consuelo Morales, Pablo Morales, Sr, Pablo Morales, Jr and Rafael Morales |
| Does, Police Officer Davis Giron, Los Angeles Police Department, Chief of Police Charlie Beck and City of Los Angeles |
| 2:2011cv04757 |
| June 3, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stephen J. Hillman |
| Stephen V. Wilson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
33
PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman re Stipulation for Protective Order 32 (sbu)
|
|
Filing
19
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, After reviewing the parties joint Stipulation for Protective Order re: Disclosure of Confidential Materials, and finding good cause therefore, the Court hereby orders: 1. Defendants may designa te as confidential LAPDs Internal Affairs complaints and investigations, and unredacted copies of LAPDs Daily Field Activities Reports and supervisors logs, all of which Defendants believe contain information of a privileged, and confidential, privat e or sensitive nature, and the public dissemination of which, Defendants believe will jeopardize compelling interests. The designation of confidential shall be made by affixing to such document or writing a legend, such as Confidential, Confidential Documents, Confidential Material, Subject to Protective Order or words of similar effect, provided such legend shall not obscure any part of the writing on any document to which it is affixed. All documents and other tangible things so designated, and all information derived therefrom (hereinafter, collectively, Confidential Information), shall be treated in accordance with the terms of this stipulation. re Stipulation for Protective Order 18 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)
|
|
Filing
17
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, After reviewing the parties joint Stipulation for Protective Order re: Disclosure of Confidential Materials, and finding good cause therefore, the Court hereby orders: 1. Plaintiffs may designa te as confidential medical records and diaries and journal entries that contain personal medical and/or psychological information, the production of which may cause great embarrassment, humiliation or shame, and defendants may designate as confidenti al LAPDs Force Investigation Division report regarding this matter, including any not previously produced photographs, addenda and statements of witnesses contained therein, all of which Defendants believe contain information of a privileged, and con fidential, private or sensitive nature, and the public dissemination of which, Defendants believe will jeopardize compelling interests. The designation of confidential shall be made by affixing to such document or writing a legend, such as Confidenti al, Confidential Documents, Confidential Material, Subject to Protective Order or words of similar effect, provided such legend shall not obscure any part of the writing on any document to which it is affixed. All documents and other tangible things so designated, and all information derived therefrom (hereinafter, collectively, Confidential Information), shall be treated in accordance with the terms of this stipulation. re Stipulation for Protective Order 16 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
