Victor Diaz, an individual; and Jesus Rojas, an individual v. The City of Los Angeles; Alfredo Castillo, an individual; Juan Diaz, an individual; and Does 1-60

Diaz v. City of Los Angeles · United States District Court for the Central District of California · January 23, 2026 · No. 25-cv-10233-FLA (PVCx)

Summary

This document is a stipulated protective order in a federal civil rights action brought by Victor Diaz and Jesus Rojas against the City of Los Angeles and individual defendants. It establishes procedures for designating, using, challenging, disclosing, and ultimately handling confidential discovery materials, including law-enforcement records, personnel files, medical records, and other sensitive information.

Holdings

  1. The court found good cause and entered the stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery material in the action.
  2. A designation of discovery material as confidential does not itself authorize filing the material under seal; a party must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing sealing of the specific material.
  3. Protected material may be used only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the action and may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions specified in the protective order.
  4. Violations of the protective order may be addressed through appropriate measures, including contempt proceedings and monetary sanctions.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether good cause supported entry of the parties' stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery material.
  2. Whether the protective order should clarify that designation of discovery material as confidential does not itself authorize filing that material under seal.
  3. What procedures and restrictions should govern designation, disclosure, challenge, use, and disposition of protected material.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976)(cited)
  • Wooden v. Comprehensive Health Mgmt., No. 20-00053 LEK-WRP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101889, at *3 (D. Haw. May 28, 2021)(cited)
  • Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-CV-04375-LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90913, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020)(cited)
  • Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006)(cited)
  • Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)(cited)
  • Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999)(cited)
  • Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010)(cited)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…