Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:4

1 Peter Bibring (SBN 223981)

pbibring(al,ac!u-sc.org .

2 ACLU FOlJNDATION OF

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

3 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, California 90017
4 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 FacsImile: (213) 977-5297
5
6 L. Rachel Lerman (SBN 193080) rlern1an@akingump.com
7 Felix Lebron (SBN 232984) flebron@akingump,com
8 Sarah GettingqSBN 260436)
sgettin~s(@,akingump,com

"~
-<

enrn'-

t~t,.,

I'

2': ~j
,-. --i =''''

0
("')

I

v r'-
>- -.,.
,. , :;"~
':::"'.', ..

--1
N -.J

..,
--

r'"\

;p.

''1

~~;l'~ ::l!:

;'::J

C3 if --, (')

~~;

-c
~AJ

-.J

-<

9 AKIN GUNIP STRAUSS HAUER &

FELDLLP

10 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400

Los Angeles, California 90067

11 Telephone: (310) 229-1020

FacsImile: (310) 229-100 I

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

l3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14
a (Ii<: 15 SHAWN NEE; GFORREGTGHOERCYEMNTOROARLED; ISTR)e;"<':;(A%1SEi'P~"'mrN<C"M;,;:'AdL" If~'lJ,Jj'p~((Nn)Y"(AlI""'?\,{ll t1tJ"''),if/)v\'v)0r (} l '

16 SHANE OUENTIN; and THE

NATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS'

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE,

17 RIGHTS ORGANIZATION,

RELIEF, DECLARATORY

RELIEF, AND DAMAGES.

18

Plaintiffs,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

19

v.

20
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;,.,LOS 21 ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFt<'S
DEPARTMENT' SERGEANT 22 MAURICE HILL,jn his individual
capacity; DEPUT y RICHARD 23 GYLFIE, in his individual capacitYi 24 D~aEpaPciU,tTy;YaBndAYDOESESin1hthisroinudgIhvifdI~u,al
mc!uslve, 25

26

Defendants.

27

28

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:5

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims

3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (in that they arise under the Constitution of the

4 United States), § 1343(a)(3) (in that they are brought to redress deprivations, under

5 color of state authority, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United

6 States Constitution), § 1343(a)(4) (in that they seek to secure equitable relief under

7 42 U.S.C. § 1983), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and

8 2202.

9

2. Venue is proper in the Central District of Califomia under 28 U.S.C.

10 § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

11 claims herein occurred in this District.

12

3. This Court has the authority to grant damages, declaratory and

13 injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28

14 U.S.C. § 1343; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

15

INTRODUCTION!

16

4. Photography is not a crime; it is a means of artistic expression. In

17 public spaces, on public streets and from public sidewalks, no law bars Los

18 Angeles residents and visitors from photographing the world around them, from

19 documenting their own lives or using their lenses to find the sublime in the

20 commonplace.

21

5. The Los Angeles Sheriffs Department ("LASD") has taken a

22 different, and erroneous, view of photography. LASD deputies have repeatedly

23 subjected the three Plaintiffs in this action, and others, to detention, search, and

24 interrogation simply because they took pictures from public streets. LASD

25 deputies have also ordered some Plaintiffs, and others, not to photograph at all

26
27 1 The allegations of this complaint are based on information and belief, unless otherwise specified.
28

1

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:6

1 from public places where photography is not prohibited. These acts plainly violate

2 Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to free expression and their Fourth Amendment

3 right to be free of unjustified searches and seizures.

4

6. For as long as human society has existed, we have turned our creative

5 attentions to exploring not only the fantastic and the grand, but also daily life

6 around us. From early cave paintings that depict hunting and farming, scenes of

7 peasant life in illustrated manuscripts, the "genre painting" works of 17th Century

8 Dutch and Flemish painters, the Impressionists such as Monet who broke with the

9 establishment's preference for pastoral landscapes or classical themes in favor of

10 the industrial scenes or depictions of workers and artists, to 20th century American

11 artists like Edward Hopper (who painted city life in works like Nighthawks)-

12 painters have captured beauty and humanity in everyday subjects.

13

7. Photographers, too, have used their talents and skills to mine daily life

14 for their art. Through its Artists Project, the Works Progress Administration in the

15 1930s sent photographers forth to document America and the WPA, a mission that

16 guided photographers like Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans into careers that

17 blended documentary and artistic styles and shaped art photography for decades to

18 come. Some of the 20th century's best-known photographers captured urban street

19 life, transit, and industrial scenes: photographs of the New York subways by

20 Walker Evans, Bruce Davidson, and William Claxton,2 trains and stations by

21 O. Winston Link,3 industrial equipment by Bernd and Hilda Becher, 4 images of

22
23 2 See, e.g., Bruce Davidson and Arthur Ollman, SUBWAY (Aperture 1986); Walker Evans, MANY ARE CALLED (Houghton Mifflin 1966); Charles Hagen, What Walker
24 Evans Saw on His Subway Rides, N.Y. Times (Dec. 31, 1991), available at 25 http://www.nytimes.comlI991112/311 arts/review-photography-what-walker-evans-
saw-on-his-subway-rides.html. 26 3 See generally Website of the Link Museum at http://www.linkmuseum.org. 27 4 See, e.g., Blake Stimson, The Photographic Comportment ofBernd and Hilla
Becher, Tate Papers (Tate Museum 2004), available at http://www.tate.org.uk/ 28 (cont'd)

2

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:7

1 urban New York in Jacob Riis's How The Other HalfLivei and Andy Warhol's

2 Street Diaries,6 or the romance of the Paris street in Robert Doisneau's iconic Le 3 Baiser De L 'Hotel De Ville. 7

4

8. With digital cameras now inexpensive and ubiquitous, and capable of

5 taking thousands of photographs with no developing costs, photography today is

6 no longer practiced only by dedicated artists and professionals, but has become a

7 widely used mode of expression. One photo-sharing website, Flickr, reportedly

8 stored 5 billion photos as of September 2010, while, at the time, social-networking

9 site Facebook reported its users uploaded half that number (2.5 billion) every 10 month.8

11

9. Plaintiffs also photograph the world around them. But LASD

12 deputies detained and searched Plaintiff Shawn Nee for photographing turnstiles

13 on the Los Angeles Metro, asking ifhe planned to sell the photos to Al Qaeda and

14 threatening to put his name on the FBI's "hit list." LASD deputies detained and

15 searched Plaintiff Moore while he was photographing drivers for a news story,

16 accusing him of "suspicious activity." LASD deputies detained and searched

17 Plaintiff Quentin while he was photographing the brilliantly lit refineries in South

18 Los Angeles at night, placing him in the back of a squad car for about forty-five

19

20 researchitateresearchitatepapers/04spring/stimson~aper.htm. 21 5 Jacob A. Riis, How the Other HalfLives: Studies Among the Tenements o/New
York, (Charles Scribner's Sons 1890). 22 6 See Jonas Mekas, Andy Warhol's Street Diary: Photographs 1981-86,' essay 23 from exhibition catalog (Deborah Bell Photographs 2010), available at
http://jonasmekasfilms.comldiary!?p=687. 24 7 See, e.g. Classic Kiss Shot Sold at Auction, B.B.C. News (Apr. 25, 2005) 25 (reporting on the 2005 sale of an original print for 155,000 Euros), available at
http://news.bbc.co.uk!2/hi/ entertainment/4481789.stm. 26 8 John D. Sutter, 5 billionth photo uploaded to Flickr, CNN (Sept. 20, 2010), 27 available at http://articles.cnn.coml2010-09-20/techiflickr.5.billion_1 ~hoto­
sharing-site- flickr- facebook. 28

3

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:8

1 minutes before releasing him. On separate occasions, LASD deputies have ordered

2 Nee and Quentin not to photograph from public sidewalks. And others besides

3 plaintiffs have suffered similar treatment at the hands ofLASD.

4

10. The LASD's policy and practices of targeting photographers did not

5 develop spontaneously. Over the past several years, law enforcement agencies

6 across the country have implemented "suspicious activity reporting" programs,

7 under which officers are trained to report certain categories of behavior believed to

8 be potential indicators of terrorism. Many departments include photography as one

9 such "suspicious activity" that should be reported. LASD's policy and practice of

10 subjecting photographers to search and detention, and of ordering people not to

11 photograph in public places where photography is generally allowed, results from a

12 deliberate extension of, or improper training on, these "suspicious activity

13 reporting" programs.

14

11. In the face of the long tradition of photographic art, and the wide

15 embrace of photography today, LASD's custom and practice of detaining,

16 searching, and interrogating people simply for lawfully taking photographs in

17 public not only violates the First and Fourth Amendment, but it also serves no

18 legitimate purpose. LASD' s custom and practice of allowing its officers to

19 prohibit photography that is perfectly lawful violates the First Amendment and

20 does not make the public safer.

21

12. By this action, Plaintiffs seek to put an end to LASD harassment of

22 photographers and to obtain a ruling from this Court that photography alone cannot

23 be a basis for criminal suspicion, detention and search.

24

PARTIES

25

13. Plaintiff Shawn Nee is a Los Angeles-based award-winning

26 photographer and aspiring professional photojournalist. His primary interests are

27 in documentary photography, particularly in capturing poverty and street life in the

28 Hollywood area, as well as other images of urban public life. Much of Nee's work

4

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:9

1 focuses on street photographs of various Hollywood communities, but he also

2 photographs in downtown Los Angeles, including capturing the homeless in Los

3 Angeles' skid row. His photography has appeared on NBC, National Public Radio,

4 The New Yorker, The Atlantic, the Stranger, LAist.com, and The Advocate, and

5 has been exhibited at various galleries in Los Angeles. Nee is a founder and

6 member of the National Photographers' Rights Organization.

7

14. Plaintiff Greggory Moore is a reporter from Long Beach, California,

8 who works for the Long Beach Post. Moore does not consider himself a serious

9 photographer, but he is generally required to take any photographs that run

10 alongside his stories. Due to the nature of his job and news coverage, Moore

11 intends to continue taking pictures of newsworthy events, including pictures of

12 public facilities in the Los Angeles area, including courthouses, subways, and other

13 public buildings.

14

15. Plaintiff Shane Quentin is an art photographer and part-time freelance

15 photographer based in Los Angeles, California. Quentin received a B.F.A. in

16 SculpturelNew Genres from OTIS College of Art and Design, and an M.F.A. in

17 Studio Art from D.C. Irvine, where he focused primarily on photography and video

18 work. His photographs have been exhibited at art galleries in Los Angeles.

19 Quentin also sells photographs commercially through stock photography services.

20 Quentin's interests include photographing industrial areas, often at night, and

21 Quentin's commercial photography primarily involves industrial subjects.

22

16. Plaintiff National Photographers' Rights Organization ("NPRO") is an

23 advocacy organization founded to educate photographers about their rights and to

24 support photographers who have been wrongfully detained in the course of taking

25 photographs or prevented from taking photographs in public places. The group has

26 a membership of several hundred nationwide, including about thirty in Los

27 Angeles, and has conducted events and actions aimed at educating photographers

28 and law enforcement about photographers' rights.

5

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:10

1

17. Defendant County of Los Angeles ("the County") is a county of the

2 State of California duly organized under the laws of the State of California.

3 Defendant County is charged by law with the administration and operation of

4 LASD and charged with the employment, control, supervision, discipline, training

5 and practices of its personnel and employees and with the formulation of its

6 policies, practices, and customs of its personnel and its employees.

7

18. Defendant LASD is a municipal corporation that provides law

8 enforcement services within the County. As part of its mandate, LASD polices the

9 Los Angeles County Metro Rail ("Metro Rail"), the rapid transit rail system

10 serving Los Angeles County, via contract with the Los Angeles County

11 Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA"). LASD is responsible for the

12 assignment, training, supervision and discipline of deputy sheriffs assigned to the

13 Metro Rail, just as they are for any other deputy sheriff within LASD.

14

19. Defendant Richard Gylfie is, and at all times material herein was, a

15 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and the County, acting

16 within the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of

17 state law. Deputy Gylfie is sued in his individual capacity.

18

20. Defendant Officer Bayes is, and at all times material herein was, a

19 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and the County, acting

20 within the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of

21 state law. Deputy Bayes is sued in his individual capacity.

22

21. Defendant Maurice Hill is, and at all times material herein was, a duly

23 appointed sergeant and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within the

24 scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state law.

25 Sergeant Hill is sued in his individual capacity.

26

22. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued as Does 1 through

27 30 are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue these Defendants by fictitious

28 names. Doe Defendants include the supervisors at LASD and County who directly

6

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:11

1 approved the acts, policies and training described herein, as well as agents,

2 officers, and employees ofLASD and County who are liable in connection with

3 one or more of the claims sued upon here and are responsible in some manner for

4 the wrongful acts and conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint

5 to show Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they have been

6 ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and herein allege, that such Doe

7 Defendants are residents of California.

8

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9 I. First Incident: Defendants' Unlawful Detention of Nee on the LA Metro

10

23. On the afternoon of Saturday, October 31, 2009, Nee bought a valid

11 ticket for the Metro Rail in order to ride home after a day of photographing.

12

24. When Nee arrived at his stop at the Hollywood and Western Metro

13 Rail station, he got off the train. He then walked toward the turnstiles and stopped

14 just inside the exit to examine the newly installed turnstiles. Nee was aware that

15 the new turnstile machines were highly controversial and the subject of contentious

16 debate in Los Angeles. Nee decided to snap a few quick photographs before he

17 left the station.

18

25. As Nee was photographing the turnstiles, Defendants LASD Deputies

19 Gylfie and Bayes approached him and asked why he was taking pictures. 9 Nee

20 asked Gylfie ifhe was being detained. Gylfie responded that Nee was being

21 detained because Gylfie wanted to know why Nee was taking pictures in the

22 subway.

23

26. When Nee protested that he wasn't doing anything wrong, Gylfie told

24 Nee that the subway station was a terrorist target, and that MTA rules prohibit

25 photography.

26
27 9 Nee captured the events on video, which he subsequently posted at http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=yY2cCPW3H7 g.
28

7

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:12

1

27. When Nee again protested that MTA rules did not prohibit

2 photography, Gy1fie asked for his identification and told him: "I want to know

3 who you are, and I want to know why you're taking pictures of the subway system.

4 Al Qaeda would love to buy your pictures, so I want to know if you are in cahoots

5 with Al Qaeda to sell these pictures to them for terrorist purposes. That's, that's a

6 crime. You understand?" When Nee again said he was committing no crime,

7 Gylfie told Nee he was "being detained until I have determined that you have not

8 committed a crime."

9

28. When Nee continued to protest his innocence of any wrongdoing,

10 Gylfie said, "maybe I should just arrest you." He then grabbed Nee and pushed

11 him up to a nearby wall and ordered him to put his hands behind his back, interlace

12 his fingers, and spread his legs. Gylfie then held Nee's hands behind his back

13 while he patted Nee down and searched through his pockets. Defendant Bayes

14 witnessed and participated in the incident and assisted in Nee's detention. Gylfie

15 neither asked for, nor received, Nee's consent to conduct the search.

16

29. During the search, Gylfie removed the contents of Nee's back left

17 pocket (including his money, identification, phone, marker and various papers and

18 receipts) and placed them on the ground. Gylfie and Bayes then scanned Nee's

19 driver's license to conduct a warrant check.

20

30. Gylfie continued to question Nee, telling him, "I want to determine

21 whether you're committing a crime or not. If you're down here taking pictures and

22 selling them to Al Qaeda so they can blow up our subway system, I've got a

23 problem with that. That's a crime. Is that clear to you or not? ... For the safety of

24 the public, riding the trains." Gylfie then proceeded to lecture Nee about

25 worldwide terrorist attacks.

26

31. Several minutes into the detention, Nee informed Gylfie that he was

27 exercising his right to remain silent. In response, Gylfie told him, "You know, I'll

28 just submit your name to T.L.O. [terrorism liaison officer]. Every time your

8

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 10 of 30 Page ID #:13

1 driver's license gets scanned, every time you take a plane, any time you go on any 2 type of public transit system where they look at your identification, you're going to

3 be stopped. You will be detained. You'll be searched. You will be on the F.B.I.'s

4 hit list. Is that what you want? ... Every time you move, you will be stopped and

5 detained and searched. And delayed."

6

32. Gylfie then again asked Nee what he was taking pictures of. As Nee

7 remained silent, Gylfie continued: "Okay, so you're taking pictures ofthe

8 infrastructure of the subway system, possibly to, uh, plant a bomb or something?" 9 Gylfie told Nee that his silence raised more suspicion and again said that he would

10 put Nee's name on "the hit list."

11

33. Gylfie's and Bayes' unlawful and unreasonable detention,

12 interrogation, and search of Nee continued for nearly 30 minutes, during which

13 time Deputies Gylfie and Bayes made clear to Nee that he was not free to leave.

14 Gylfie and Bayes released Nee without issuing a citation and told him to leave the

15 Metro Rail Station.

16

34. Nee subsequently filed a complaint with LASD, providing them with

17 a link to the video footage. On about June 13,2011, Nee received a letter signed

18 by Capt. Daniel S. Cruz, of LASD's Transit Services North Bureau, about his

19 complaint, which stated, "Based on thorough investigation by Internal Affairs and

20 a review of the audio and video of the incident, they determined that the deputy did

21 not violate any department policies."

22

35. The Metro "Photography Guidelines" listed on the MTA website

23 provide that photography within the Metro Rail system is permitted with limited 24 exceptions. 10 So long as the photography is not for commercial purposes, no

25

26 10 The Metro photography guidelines are available at 27 http://www.metro.netlaboutlfilming-metro/metro-filming-photography-guidelines/.
In addition to the posted guidelines, the MTA has clarified no permit is necessary 28 (cont'd)

9

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 11 of 30 Page ID #:14

1 permit is required if the photographic equipment is hand held, no tripods or flash

2 are used, and the images are not taken inside moving trains. Nee complied with all

3 of these limitations, and was not taking these photographs for commercial

4 purposes. Nee followed MTA rules and was otherwise engaged in lawful,

5 protected activity when Gylfie and Bayes detained him and accused him of

6 conspiring with terrorists.

7

36. As a result of his unlawful and unreasonable detention, Nee now

8 experiences extreme anxiety over riding the Metro Rail and photographing on

9 MTA property and seldom rides the subway anymore.

10 II. Second Incident: Defendants Unlawfully Prevented Nee From

11

Photographing on Hollywood Boulevard

12

37. On Sunday, May 1,2011, Nee was photographing people walking on

13 the street along Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, California, as part of a long-

14 running project to build a book of photographs on the street life of Hollywood.

15

38. While he was photographing, Nee became aware ofa commotion on

16 Hollywood near Vine, in front of the entrance to the Hollywood / Vine Metro

17 Station that is in the base of the W Hotel. Nee approached and saw four to five

18 LASD cars and an ambulance pulled over on the street. About ten officers huddled

19 around the cars, including a senior officer who was videotaping the scene. The

20 incident attracted a number of curious observers, many of whom stopped on the

21 sidewalk as they walked down Hollywood Boulevard.

22

39. Nee began to take pictures of the scene from the public sidewalk in

23 front of the W Hotel and Metro entrance. The sidewalk where Nee stood is wide

24 compared with many in the area, and, as part of the Hollywood Star Walk, is a

25 tourist attraction in its own right. Nee was standing on the Hollywood Star Walk

26

27 to take photographs for noncommercial purposes.
28

10

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 12 of 30 Page ID #:15

1 while he photographed, near the star for Shania Twain. Nee photographed while

2 some pedestrians walked past and others stood looking at the incident. The

3 deputies had not closed the sidewalk, nor were Nee or other onlookers blocking the

4 free passage of pedestrians.

5

40. Shortly after he began photographing, an LASD deputy approached

6 Nee. I I The deputy told Nee that he was standing "between the W [Hotel] building

7 and MTA property" and that "they don't allow any photography between the W

8 building and MTA property." The deputy also told him that a person at the scene

9 was receiving medical treatment and could sue Nee if Nee took his picture. The

10 deputy told Nee that ifhe wanted to take photographs, he would ask Nee to move

11 from his current location to the other side of the W Hotel, nearly half a block away.

12

41. Nee protested that he was not doing anything unlawful, and asked if

13 the sidewalk was still open, to which the deputy said that public access was

14 limited. Nee asked the deputy ifhe could merely stand and take photographs

15 where other individuals were standing watching the scene, but the deputy told him

16 he could not and again directed Nee to relocate behind the W Hotel, indicating that

17 he was giving Nee a "lawful order." During this exchange, Nee asked to speak to a

18 supervisor, and the deputy responded that it was his supervisor who had instructed

19 him to tell Nee to move.

20

42. Nee moved to the property line and continued taking photographs,

21 though his view at this point was obscured. Nee waited for about thirty minutes to

22 speak to a supervisor about not being allowed to photograph while standing next to

23 others surrounding the incident. When an officer Nee recognized as a supervisor

24 by his insignia walked by, Nee asked to speak to him. As the supervisor stopped,

25 Nee explained that one of the deputies was preventing him from photographing the

26
27 I I Nee captured the incident from this point forward on video, which he subsequently posted at http://www.youtube.comiwatch?v=IQfLXmVXguw.
28

11

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 13 of 30 Page ID #:16

1 incident from a public sidewalk. The supervisor said, "Alright, alright," and

2 walked away from Nee.

3 III. Third Incident: Defendants' Unlawful Detention of Moore

4

43. On June 2, 2011, Moore was working on a story for the Long Beach

5 Post about an April 2011 statewide campaign called Distracted Driving Awareness

6 Month. He left his Long Beach apartment to try to take pictures of drivers talking

7 or texting while driving to accompany his story. Moore walked from his apartment

8 to a nearby busy intersection at Ocean Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue in Long

9 Beach, and began taking pictures of drivers as they stopped at the traffic light. It

10 was early afternoon, and Moore was dressed in a T-shirt, shorts, and running shoes.

11

44. Moore had been photographing for several minutes when a group of

12 several LASD deputies approached and asked him ifhe was taking pictures of the

13 courthouse. Before Moore could answer fully, one ofthe deputies told him to step

14 away from the street. The deputies took Moore's camera, while one told him to

15 put his hands behind his back. A deputy held Moore's hands behind him while

16 another one patted him down thoroughly, including grabbing hold of the keys in

17 his pocket and manipulating them, groping the area of his groin twice, pulling up

18 his T-shirt and checking the waistband of his pants.

19

45. As they patted Moore down, the officers arranged themselves in a ring

20 around Moore, so he could not leave, and proceeded to question him. Moore

21 counted eight officers surrounding him.

22

46. One of the officers, whom Moore later identified as Sgt. Hill, asked

23 Moore again what he was doing. When Moore said he was a reporter and

24 explained the story he was working on, Sgt. Hill asked what news publication he

25 worked for.

26

47. After Moore had responded to the deputies' questions, he asked why

27 they had stopped him. Sgt. Hill told Moore that he was across the street from the

28 Long Beach Superior Court. Sgt. Hill told him that the courthouse was a "critical

12

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 14 of 30 Page ID #:17

1 facility" and that his apparent photography of the courthouse was "suspicious

2 activity." When Moore asked if taking pictures of the courthouse was illegal, Sgt.

3 Hill replied that it was not, but told Moore that ifhis deputies get a call about

4 someone photographing the courthouse, they have to respond.

5

48. At some point, Moore asked the deputy holding his camera to retum

6 it. The deputy responded that he wanted to see the photographs Moore had taken.

7 Moore showed the deputies the snapshots of drivers he had taken on the screen on

8 his digital camera. Moore believed from the officer's response and his demeanor

9 that they would only return the camera if Moore showed them the pictures.

10

49. The LASD deputies held Moore for about fifteen to twenty minutes.

11 Before they allowed him to leave, one of the deputies demanded that Moore

12 provide his name, address, phone number, driver's license number, name of the

13 publication he worked for, and the publisher's name and contact information. The

14 deputies eventually released Moore without issuing him any citation.

15

50. Later that day, Moore called Sgt. Hill attempting to inquire further

16 into his detention. Hill told him: "We were detaining you because of a suspicious

17 circumstance to ascertain your intention." Sgt. Hill invited Moore to meet in

18 person about the incident, which Moore did. At the meeting, Sgt. Hill told Moore

19 that the investigation was related to terrorism and that "taking pictures of the

20 courthouse does meet the standard for a pat-down search."

21

51. Following the incident, the National Press Photographers Association

22 ("NPPA") wrote to LASD on July 14,2011, to express its concern about the

23 conduct of the LASD officers. On about August 18, 2011, NPPA received a letter

24 signed by Sheriff Baca stating that the incident had been investigated and

25 defending the deputies' actions.

26

52. Moore followed up with another interview with LASD Captain Steven

27 M. Roller, who identified himself as "unit commander" officer over the Long

28 Beach courthouse. Capt. Roller defended the deputies' decision to pat Moore

13

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 15 of 30 Page ID #:18

1 down. Roller told Moore that courthouses were potential terrorist targets, so that

2 taking pictures near a courthouse would be suspicious activity, and in investigating

3 somebody taking pictures near a courthouse who is a "potential terrorist," deputies

4 would be entitled to pat him down. Capt. Roller said that ifhe had been on the

5 scene, he would have patted Moore down.

6 IV. Fourth Incident: Defendants' First Unlawful Detention of Quentin

7

53. On December 31, 2009, at about 1:00 a.m., Quentin and another

8 photographer were taking photographs of a large refinery from the comer of 9 Wilmington Avenue and East 223rd Street in Carson, California.

10

54. Both Quentin and the other photographer he was with that evening

11 take pictures of industrial areas to sell through stock photo services. By using

12 long exposures and creative framing, Quentin creates dramatic and artistic

13 depictions of industrial buildings. To take pictures of industrial scenery at night,

14 Quentin uses a large, professional-quality camera and takes pictures openly, using

15 a tripod.

16

55. While Quentin and his companion were photographing from a public

17 sidewalk by the intersection, an LASD deputy pulled alongside them in her car and

18 began yelling at them aggressively, saying they had no right to be there and could

19 not take photographs. They protested that they were on a public sidewalk and were

20 violating no laws, and asked why she was telling them to leave, but the deputy

21 continued, without explanation, to yell at them and to order them repeatedly to stop

22 photographing and leave the area.

23

56. Quentin and his companion complied with the deputy's orders and

24 stopped photographing, then walked to a nearby diner and ate a late meal. As they

25 walked out of the diner to return to their car, they began photographing the refinery

26 agam. The LASD deputy that had confronted them returned and again confronted

27 them. This time, she told them that it was suspicious that they were out

28 photographing so late, and threatened to place them on the "no fly" list.

14

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 16 of 30 Page ID #:19

1

57. After a few minutes, another LASD officer pulled up and began

2 speaking with Quentin and his companion. The second officer took a calmer tone,

3 but told the two photographers that though he understood their frustrations, they

4 should not anger the first deputy any further and, given the late hour, should leave

5 the area. The second officer told them that their behavior looked suspicious and

6 suggested that they might be affiliated with terrorists. Quentin and the other

7 photographer again protested, politely but repeatedly, that they were breaking no

8 law. But the second officer repeatedly told the two that they could not continue

9 photographing and had to leave the area. Quentin and the other photographer

10 eventually complied, stopped taking photographs, and left. The LASD deputies

11 did not issue either Quentin or his friend a citation.

12 V. Fifth Incident: Defendants' Second Unlawful Detention of Quentin

13

58. On January 21,2011, an LASD deputy stopped Quentin when he was

14 photographing another refinery by himself at about 1:25 a.m. The deputy

15 immediately ordered him to place his hands behind his back and held them there

16 while he patted him down thoroughly. The deputy removed the contents of

17 Quentin's pockets and placed them on the hood of the LASD car.

18

59. While the deputy searched Quentin, he began asking what Quentin

19 was doing there and why he was out so late. Quentin cooperated, explaining that

20 he was taking photos.

21

60. After searching Quentin, the deputy placed him in the back ofthe

22 LASD car and waited outside. Before doing so, however, the deputy asked

23 Quentin ifhis camera was recording video and told him that he had to tum it off if

24 it was.

25

61. Within a few minutes, about four more LASD officers had arrived in

26 at least two more cars. The deputies took turns questioning Quentin in the back of

27 the LASD cruiser. The deputies again asked what he was doing photographing the

28 refinery, and why he was photographing this refinery in particular. They also asked

15

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 17 of 30 Page ID #:20

1 Quentin what he did with the pictures he took and whether he was affiliated with

2 any terrorist organizations or a member of any street gang. They asked where he

3 lived, about his job, and where he had parked that night. They asked some

4 questions several times. After about forty-five minutes, the deputies released

5 Quentin from the car.

6

62. After they released him, Quentin asked what would happen ifhe kept

7 taking pictures. They responded that they would take him to jail and let a judge

8 decide what to do with him. As a result, Quentin did not take any more

9 photographs. The deputies told him that they would give him a ride to his car.

10 When Quentin said he would walk because it was only a block away, the deputies

11 told him they had to give him a ride. The deputies did not issue Quentin a citation.

12

63. As a result of these incidents, Quentin has suffered emotional distress

13 and has been reluctant to take photographs of industrial areas.

14 VI. Additional Incidents

15

64. The experiences of Plaintiffs Nee, Moore, and Quentin are not

16 isolated. In addition to the five incidents that have given rise to this litigation,

17 LASD has stopped and seized other photographers, as well as telling

18 photographers that they are not allowed to photograph public buildings from public

19 sidewalks or other places they are legally allowed to be.

20

65. Ted Soqui is a well-known freelance photojournalist based in Los

21 Angeles, California, where he has worked for decades. On April 28, 2011, Soqui

22 was photographing the exterior of the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail and

23 nearby bail bonds businesses for use in a Los Angeles Weekly story on deputy

24 abuses at the jail. Standing only on public sidewalks, he took photographs openly

25 in broad daylight. As he was walking back to his car, an LASD squad car pulled

26 up to him, and a deputy got out and ordered him to come over. More deputies

27 arrived until a total of six deputies were present at his subsequent questioning.

28 Soqui told the deputies that he was taking pictures for a newspaper, but refused to

16

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 18 of 30 Page ID #:21

1 answer what the story was about. At that moment, the lead deputy put his hand on

2 his gun, moved uncomfortably close to Soqui, and asked to search him. Soqui

3 complied. After deputies took Soqui's license and used it to run a warrant check,

4 the officers released him, telling him that his detention was a national security

5 issue. They informed him that photography was not allowed on Bauchet Street, a

6 public street with sidewalks that run between Twin Towers Correctional Facility

7 and Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail.

8

66. Doran Barons is a photographer, radio and broadcast engineer, and

9 radio host. In about August 2008, Barons was awaiting the Metro Rail subway at

10 the North Hollywood Metro station in Hollywood, California. While waiting, he

11 began taking photographs of lights and subway trains in the station, all the while

12 remaining on the station platform in areas accessible to the public, and otherwise

13 complying with MTA rules regarding photography. Soon after he began taking

14 photos, an LASD deputy came up to him and ordered him to stop photographing,

15 telling Barons that photography was not permitted on MTA property. Barons

16 responded that photography was lawful and allowed, but the deputy demanded that

17 Barons stop photographing and asked for his driver's license. The deputy released

18 Barons without a citation. Barons thereafter became reluctant to ride the Metro

19 Rail or to photograph in the Metro Rail station.

20

67. In mid-September 2011, Catherine Dent was taking photographs of

21 the exterior and signage for Men's Central Jail from Bauchet Street for use in a

22 video project. She had been photographing openly on the publicly accessible

23 sidewalk using a large, professional-quality SLR camera, when two LASD

24 deputies driving in the opposite direction made a U-turn and pulled their car onto

25 the sidewalk near her. The two deputies got out and ordered Dent to come over to

26 them. They asked her to show them her pictures, which she refused to do. They

27 asked for her identification. She told them it was in her car, which was parked in a

28 lot some distance away. They told her to go get it. She replied that she would

17

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 19 of 30 Page ID #:22

1 show it to them if they accompanied her to her car, then turned and walked toward

2 her car. When she arrived at her car several minutes later, no LASD officers were

3 in sight. Dent got into her car and began to drive toward the parking lot exit, when

4 another LASD car pulled across the exit so as to block it and prevent her from

5 leaving the lot. Dent had to stop her car to avoid hitting the deputies' car. Two

6 deputies got out and approached Dent in the manner of a traffic stop and asked for

7 her identification, which she produced. They circled her car and examined her

8 license plate. They also asked her to show them the photographs she had taken,

9 which she refused to do. They asked why she was taking photographs, and she

10 replied it was for a school project. Upon further questioning, Dent told them it was

11 for an extension school class in film and video production at UCLA. The deputies

12 released her after about five minutes.

13

68. On October 19, 2011, Plaintiff Nee was standing in the

14 WilshirelNormandie Metro station, outside the ticketed area, waiting for protestors

15 from the Occupy LA movement to arrive, when LASD deputies standing nearby

16 told him not to take pictures of them, and told him that photography was not

17 permitted in the Metro station. Nee was not taking photographs at the time, but

18 was holding his camera.

19 VII. LASD Training and Suspicious Activity Reporting

20

69. The incidents described above paint a clear pattern of harassment of

21 photographers at the hands ofLASD. Upon information and belief, this custom

22 stems from LASD policy and training providing that photography is, without more,

23 a suspicious activity potentially indicative of terrorism. This policy and training

24 predictably leads to the unconstitutional detention of individuals taking

25 photographs in public spaces, and to the chilling of their First Amendment right to

26 take photographs.

27

70. Over the past several years, law enforcement agencies across the

28 country have begun instituting programs to get officers to investigate and report

18

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 20 of 30 Page ID #:23

1 information that is perceived to be potentially related to national security. To that

2 end, with the encouragement of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and

3 Director of National Intelligence ("DNI"), many departments have instituted

4 "suspicious activity reporting" programs. These programs require that line officers

5 be trained to identify and report certain kinds of activity (including noncriminal

6 conduct) that may have potential counterterrorism value to their department's

7 counterterrorism officers. This information can then be used and potentially

8 shared with other agencies through "fusion" centers.

9

71. "Suspicious activity reporting" was initially developed by the Los

10 Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") under their Special Order 11, which

11 requires officers report as "suspicious activities" any number of different criminal

12 and noncriminal activity, including when an individual "[t]akes pictures or video

13 footage (with no apparent esthetic value, i.e. camera angles, security equipment,

14 security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc.)" and "[e]ngages in

15 suspected pre-operational surveillance (uses binoculars or cameras, takes

16 measurements, draws diagrams, etc.)."

17

72. Based in part on Special Order 11 as a model, the DNI has issued

18 standards for "suspicious activity reporting.,,12 These standards list as a

19 "suspicious activity," among other things, "[t]aking pictures or video of facilities,

20 buildings, or infrastructure in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable

21 person."

22

73. Likewise, the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's ("FBI") descriptions

23 of its eGuardian suspicious activity reporting system indicate that reportable

24

25 12 See, e.g., Information Sharing Environment, Functional Standard, Suspicious
26 Activity Reporting, Version 1.5 (May 2009) ("Functional Standards"), available at
27 http://nsi.ncirc.gov/documents/ISE-FS-200_ISE-SAR]unctional_Standard_VI_ 5 _Issued_2009. pdf.
28

19

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 21 of 30 Page ID #:24

1 activities include "photography of key infrastructure faci1ities.,,13

2

74. Building upon the foundation developed by LAPD and DNI, LASD

3 implemented an analogous suspicious activity reporting program. LASD policy

4 5.09/490.l0, titled "Notification Process for Potential Homeland Security

5 Activity," details the requirements of what it calls "Potential Homeland Security

6 Activity" ("PHSA"), specifically stating that "[t]he reporting of PHSA is also

7 known nationally as 'Suspicious Activity Reporting.'" The policy emphasizes that

8 all LASD personnel understand PHSA reporting procedures. It further states that

9 personnel should be advised that PHSA "may not rise to the level of a crime" and

10 "may not have a clear nexus to terrorism."

11

75. As part of its PHSA program, LASD's Field Operations Directive 03-

12 03 (Apr. 23, 2003) establishes clearance code 709-"Possible Terrorism Related

13 Incident" to be employed by LASD personnel who respond to an incident related

14 to terrorist activities. The first example listed of when such a code should be used

15 is "suspicious persons videotaping public transportation, government facilities or

16 local critical facilities."

17

76. The actions of the LASD officers described above were not the

18 unauthorized acts of rogue officers. To the contrary, the officers were acting

19 consistent with LASD policy and training. The nature of "suspicious activity

20 reporting" programs, the existence of such a program at LASD, and the pattern and

21 practice by LASD personnel of detention, harassment and prohibition of

22 photographers (and validation of that conduct by superiors who investigate

23 complaints), demonstrate that LASD has adopted, through training or custom, a

24 policy of detaining and searching photographers who photograph what government

25 buildings, infrastructure, or anything officers perceive to be a potential terrorist

26

27 13 See http://www.fbi.gov/foialprivacy-impact-assessments/eguardian-threat.
28

20

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 22 of 30 Page ID #:25

1 target. LASD effectively trains its officers that such photography is prohibited, or

2 can be prohibited at the officers' discretion, even if the photographer is in a public

3 place and violating no law or rule while photographing.

4

CAUSES OF ACTION

5

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

6

Violation of the Fourth Amendment; 42 U.S.c. § 1983

7

(Against All Defendants)

8

77. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

9 forth herein.

10

78. Defendants' actions described above violated Plaintiffs' rights under

11 the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by subjecting Plaintiffs to

12 unreasonable warrantless searches and seizures.

13

79. The violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights occurred

14 pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by LASD and the County, of

15 having LASD officers detain, search, and interrogate photographers who

16 photograph in public places where photography is legal and where officers have no

17 reasonable basis to believe the photographer is engaged in any criminal activity or

18 is armed or dangerous.

19

80. Defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional or

20 other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials

21 should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. §

22 1983.

23

81. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these

24 Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional and economic harm.

25

82. Plaintiffs all intend to continue photographing, but fear further

26 detention and harassment by the LASD. That fear prevents them from

27 photographing as much as they would like or in places they would like.

28

21

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 23 of 30 Page ID #:26

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation of the First Amendment; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

3

(Against All Defendants)

4

83. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

5 forth herein.

6

84. Defendants' actions described herein violated Plaintiffs' rights under

7 the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting Plaintiffs

8 from exercising their constitutional right to free speech and expression, as weIl as

9 freedom of the press, and by retaliating against Plaintiffs for attempting to exercise

10 those same rights.

11

85. The violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights occurred pursuant

12 to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by LASD and the County, of having

13 LASD officers prohibit photographers from photographing in public places where

14 photography is lawful, and of retaliating against photographers who exercise their

15 First Amendment rights to photograph in such places by detaining, searching, and

16 interrogating them.

17

86. Defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional or

18 other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials

19 should have lmown, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C.

20 § 1983.

21

87. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these

22 Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered significant emotional and economic harm.

23

88. Plaintiffs all intend to continue photographing in public, but fear

24 further detention and harassment by the LASD. That fear prevents them from

25 photographing as much as they would like or in places they would like.

26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

27

89. Plaintiffs therefore respectfuIly request that the Court enter a

28 judgment including:

22

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 24 of 30 Page ID #:27

1

a. A declaratory judgment that Defendants' actions as described herein

2

violated the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States

3

Constitution;

4

b. To the extent the Court finds that Defendants' conduct were

5

authorized by a policy or regulation, a declaratory judgment that those

6

policies or regulations are unconstitutional under the First and Fourth

7

Amendments to the United States Constitution;

8

c. As to the County of Los Angeles and LASD, an injunction to prevent

9

the unlawful detention, search, interrogation, and harassment of

10

photographers solely based on the fact they are taking photographs,

11

and to prevent LASD officers from prohibiting photography in public

12

places where photography otherwise violates no law.

13

d. As to all Defendants, compensatory and statutory damages for

14

violation of the laws and Constitution of the United States and State 0

15

California, in an amount to be determined at trial;

16

e. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

17

f. Any other relief as may be just and proper.

18

19 Dated: October 27, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

20

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA 21

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &

22

FELDLLP

23

24

By:

25

26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27

28

23

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 25 of 30 Page ID #:28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY
This case has been assigned to District Judge Dean D. Pregerson and the assigned discovery Magistrate Judge is Jay C. Gandhi. The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:
CVll- 8899 DDP (JCGx)
Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).

Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:

[Xl Western Division
312 N. Spring St., Rm. G-8 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Ll Southern Division

U Eastern Division

411 West Fourth St., Rm. 1-053

3470 Twelfth St., Rm. 134

Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516

Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.

CV-18 (03/06)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISCOVERY

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 26 of 30 Page ID #:29
Peter Bibring (SBN 223981) ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017
(Additional counsel on Attachment)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN NEE; GREGGORY MOORE; SHANE

CASE NUMBER

QUENTlN; and THE NATIONAL

PHOTOGRAHERS' RlGHTS ORGANIZATION,

PLAINTIFF(S)
v.

••

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; (Contnued on Attachment)

SUMMONS

DEFENDANT(S).

TO: DEFENDANT(S): COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; (Continued on Attachment)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you

I i must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint 0

amended complaint

o counterclaim 0 cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiffs attorney, Peter Bibring

, whose address is

1313 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017

. If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file

your answer or motion with the court.

OCT 27 2011
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

By: _ _ _ _ _\--'oL_ _-+-__

(Seal ofthe Court)

[Use 60 days ifthe defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee ofthe United Slales. Allowed
60 days by Rule J2(a)(3)}.

CV-OIA (12/07)

SUMMONS

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 27 of 30 Page ID #:30
ATTACHMENT TO SUMMONS
Additional Plaintiff's Attorneys:
L. Rachel Lennan (SBN 193080) rlennan@akingump.com
Felix Lebron (SBN 232984) flebron@akingump.com
Sarah Gettings (SBN 260436) sgettings@akingump.com
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Defendants continued:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, 0\ vv"lv\ll;,\ ~A\
-av~b)'l.th~ SERGEANT MAURICE HILL, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY RICHARD GYLIFIE, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY BAYES, in his
individual capacity; and DOES 1through lO, inclusive

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 28 of 30 Page ID #:31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEin'

I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you arc representing yourself D) Shawn Nee; Groggol)' Moore; Shane Qllcntin; and The National Photographers'
Rights Organization

DEFENOAN'fS See Attachment

(b) Altorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. Jfyou arc representing yourself, provide sumo.)
Peter l3ibring (SEN 223981), ACLU Foundation orSoutbern California, 90017, Tel; (213) 977-9500
(Sec Attachment for additional counsel)

Al{orneys (If Known)

II. BASIS Ol~ JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

o I U.S. Government Plaintiff

03 Federal Question (U.S. Government NOla Party)

III, CITIZENSJIll~ OF PRINCIPAL )'AH.TIES ~ FOr Diversity Cases Only (Place an X in Olle box for plaintiff and one for defendant.)

Citizen ofThis State

!it DJW 01 Incorporated or Principal Place of Businc:ss ill this State

PTF DlW 04 04

02 U.S. Government Defendant 04 Diversity (!ndicale Citizenship C[ti;l.en of Another State of Parties in Item III)

02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place OS OS of Business in Another Stale

Citi:ten or Subjcct ofa Foreign Counlry 03 03 Foreign Nation

06 06

lV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box on[y.)

r:il Original 02 Removed from 03 Remanded from 04 Reinstated or 05 Transferred from another district (specify):

Proceeding

State Coun

Appellate Court

Reopened

y, REQOESTEO rN COMPLAINT: JOIW DI<:MAND: fiVes o No (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.)

o 6 Multi~ 07 Appeal 10 District

District

Judge from

Litigation Magislratc Judge

CLASS ACnON uuder F.R,C,P. 23: 0 Yes tiNo

iil'MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $ Unspecified

VI, CAOSE OF ACI'lON (Cite the U.S. Civii Statute under which YOll are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) see attachment
VII, NATunE OF SUIT (l)lace an X in one bo~ ollly)

·;'/OTHg@T,\T.lJtE~\.·.• ·· o 400 Slale Reapportionment

o110 ':';'~~~~n~?'ci<':"""': ';<:~':', ':'~';{~~:~~~~ftfJ'~'S~~'" ~{ ~:;E·;::~.:.;~~~~~Slt:·in ;:,}~ ~;):i(;':~ \t~~~~~~!;~ f}:;t~{ g~;;~·:':::~l·tt~~~~:;«ndmds

0410 Antitrust

0120 Marine

0310 Airplane

PROPERTY

0510 MotionSlo

Act

0430 Banks and Banking 0450 Commeree!iCC
Rates/clc.

0130 MilicrAct

0315 Airplane Product 0370 Other Fraud

VacatcSentence 0720 Labor/Mgml.

o 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

0371 Truth in Lending

Habeas Corpus

Relations.

o 150 Recovcty of

0 320 Assault, Libel & 0380 Other Personal 0 530 General

a 730 Labor/Mgmt.

0460 Deportation

Overpayment &

Slander

Property Damage 0535 Death Penalty

Reporting &

0470 Racketeer lnnuenced and Cormpt

Enforcement of Judgment

0330 Fed. Employers' 0385 l)roperty Damage 0540 Mandamus!

L.illbility.

,~r~d~cp'..!a.~i!ity

Other

Disclosure Act 0740 Railway Labor Act

Organizations

0151 Medicare Act

0340 Marine

:-';:':::'J3:ANKiu../M..'CY,:s\'·' :i 0550 Civil Rights 0790 Other Labor

0480 Consumer Credit 0490 Cable/Sat TV 0810 Selective Service

~~~~~:(an g;;~ ~~:i;i~~~:~:: o IS2 Rccovery of Defaullcd 0345 Marine Product (Excl.

~i~hdrawal 0422 Appeal 28 USC

0 423

28

0\;5i.5(5{{,~P~r9ifsJo#nftC~~o>nr{d.i~li~o!n;~ ~ ~91 L~~i~tilg_a;tii~oen~~tnc.

0850 Securities/Commodities/ 0 153 Rccovery of

Exchange

Overpayment of

Product Liability

USC 151

0610 Agricu!tl1Tc

~2/PR'6'p:'Ei~1Y:Ii!GHTS"

0 360 Othcr Personal ·:':':~~:~qYI.i;:)iXGirt:f'.'::: :',; 0 620 Other Food & 0 820 Copyrights

0875 CuslomcrChallenge 12

Veleran's Benefits

Injury

0441 VOting

Drug

0830 Patent

g11i o 890

USC 3410 Other Statutory Actions

0160 0190

~~~\~~h~!~~;:~tSuitS

0 362 ~;~o~~I~;~~~~c

~~\f;~;;~~o~ 0 625 ~:i~~~~tcd g~~,§~6\~te~·~b1RiTy.,

0891 AgricullUla! Act

0195 Contract Product

o 892 Economic Stabilization

Liability

0365 Personallnjul)'.

mmodations

Product Liability 0444 Welfare

Property 21 USC 0861 InA (1395fT)

881

0862 })lack Lung (923)

Act

0196 Franchise

0368 Asbcs\os\lersonal 0445 Atnericanwith 0630 LiquorLaws 0863 DIWC/DlWW

0893 Environmental Matters \:.:»REA'Lj>ROi>'ER:fV. <'"':;::'/

Injury Product

Disabilities ~ 0640 RR. & 'l'ruck

(405Cg))

0894 Energy Allocation Act 0210 Land Condemnation

Liability

Employment 0650 Airline Regs 0864 SSID Tille XVI

0895 Freedom of InCo. Act 0220 Foreclosure

···.:.;:';JMMIGRATJON::·: .i!:;:; 0446 Amcricanwith 0660 Occupational 9.865 RSI(405(g»

0900 Appeal of Fee Detemli~ 0230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0462 Naturalir.ation

Disabilities ~

Safety /Health .;;',:{}EDERAL'..T.A.X-"SUITS

nation Under Equal
Access to Justice 0950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

0240 Torts to Land 0245 Tort Product Liabllity

0463 HAapbpeliaCsllClioornpus~

Other li440 OlherCivil

0290 All Other Real Property

Alien Detainee

Rights

0465 Other Immigration

Actions

0690 Other

0870 Ta){es (U.S.l'laintiff or Defendant)
0 871 IRS~Third Party 26 USC 7609

Fon OFFICE USE ONLY: CaseNumber: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __C__ _ AFTER COMPLETING THE I,'RONT sun; 01~ 110RM CV~71. COMPLETE TilE INl,'ORMATION REQUESTJW BELOW.

CV-71 (OS/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page I of2

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 29 of 30 Page ID #:32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHI<:ET

VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? riNo 0 Yes Jfyes, list case numbcr(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ VIJI(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that arc related to the prescnt case? riNo 0 Yes Jfyes, [istcase number(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Civil cases are deemed related ira previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) 0 A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or
DB. Cal! for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or DC. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or
o D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.

IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, lIse an additional sheet ifnccessary.)

(a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; Slate if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. 0 Check here if the government its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b).

County in this District·

California County outside of this District; State, ifother than California; or Foreign Coun!!)'

Los Angeles County

(b) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. 0 Check here if the government its agencies or emplovees is a named defendant. If this box is checked, gO to item (c).

County in this District·

California County outside of this District; State, ifother than California; or Forclgn Country

Los Angeles County

(c) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose.
Note' In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract ofland involved

County in this District·

California County outside of this District; State, ifother than California; or Foreign Country

Los Angeles County

-I< Los Angeles, Orange, San Demardino, Riverside, Vellttll·a, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties

Note: In land condemnation cases use the location of the tract ofland involved

f~~··~
X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER):

"~'I ",. _ ? ~,-" ....L..,>.,?"~...~... -c~,"~-,.. - ~,,_!)..e_O_c_to_b_cr_2_7"',_2_0_11___________

C~",/

Notice to CounselfPal·tics: The CV·71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings

or other papers as required by law. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3·1 is not filed

but is used by theCJcrk ofthe Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For morc detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.)

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action

86!

HIA

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended.

Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the

program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b)

862

BL

AI! claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part il, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

(30 U.S.c. 923)

863

OIWC

AlJ claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance bcnefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as

amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g»)

863

DIWW

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security

Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

864

SSID

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security

Act, as amended.

865

RS!

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42

li.8.C. (g))

CV-7! (05/08)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of2

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 1 Filed 10/27/11 Page 30 of 30 Page ID #:33
ATTACHMENT TO CIVIL COVER SHEET
I(a). Additional Plaintiff's Attorneys:
L. Rachel Lerman (SBN 193080) rlerman@akingump.com
Felix Lebron (SBN 232984) flebron@akingump.com
Sarah Gettings (SBN 260436) sgettings@akingump.com
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Defendants:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a Municipal Corporation; SERGEANT MAURICE HILL, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY RICHARD GYLIFIE, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY BAYES, in his individual capacity; and DOES Ithrough 30, inclusive
VI. Cause of Action:
Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful search and seizure in violation of Fourth Amendment and restriction on protected expression in violation of First Amendment.

 
 Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:260

1 Peter Bibring (SBN 223981) pbibring@ac!u-sc.org ..
2 ACLU FOuNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
3 1313 West Eighth Street Los Angeles, California 90017
4 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 FacSImile: (213) 977-5297
5
6 L. Rachel Lerman (SBN 193080) rlerman@akingump.com

;.::"

~

or-

., ;r;"r~.

'" 711

,) ::'
r-·'"
~"

=.""
""(/)
,.."

<./~ f'-'

--0

> :?:

• \...) ,
'-~:~. -'~

N

I ". .;.

:)
,~

~",

..~
':>3

-- "

'"• C-,>

,,...,. <0:

;;.-.~

J:}

":J::
':'?
<:r.
-.,J

--11
r
fl'J 0

--<

7 Felix Lebron (SBN 232984)

flebron@akingump.com

8 Sarah Gettings (SBN 260436)

sgettings(aJ,akingump. c o m

9 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &

FELDLLP

10 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400

Los Angeles, California 90067

11 Telephone: (310) 229-1020

FacSImile: (310) 229-1001

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SHAWN NEE; GREGGORY MOORE;

CASE NO.: l1-cv-08899 DDP (JCGx)

16 SHANE OUENTIN; and THE

NATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS'

SECOND AMENDED

17 RIGHTS ORGANIZATION,

COMPLAINT

18

Plaintiffs,

19

v.

20
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' LOS 21 ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT' SERGEANT
22 MAURICE HILL, in his individual capacity; SERGEANT SALVADOR
23 BECERRA, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY RICHARD GYLFIE in his
24 individual capacity; DEPUTY SAYES, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY
25 D'ANDRE LAMPKIN, in his individual
ca,p.acity; DEPUTY LASHON
26 0 BANNON, in her individual capacity;
DEPUTY CARLOS L. SANCHEZ, in
27 his individual capacitYi DEPUTY
28 MiJnAdISCivOHidNAuEaClLAcRaAp.TaCAciHGtyiAE' CNDOAEPNiUniTnhYihsis individual capacity; DEPUTY MARINA

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:261
GARCIA, in her individual capacity; DEPUTY RYCK BURWELL, in his 2 individual capacity; DEPUTY GUSTAVO CARRANZA, in his 3 individual capacity; DEPUTY ERNIE KING, in his individual capacity; 4 DEPUTY ANTHONY PAEZ, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY JOSE 5 CARBAJAL, JR., in his individual capacity; ana DOES 1 through 30, 6 inclusive.
7
Defendants.
8
9~---------------------------
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22
23 24 25
26
27
28

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:262

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims

3 pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1331 (in that they arise under the Constitution of the

4 United States), § I343(a)(3) (in that they are brought to redress deprivations, under

5 color of state authority, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United

6 States Constitution), § 1343(a)(4) (in that they seek to secure equitable relief under

7 42 U.S.C. § 1983), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and

8 2202.

9

2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.c.

10 § 1391 (b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

11 claims herein occurred in this District.

12

3. This Court has the authority to grant damages, declaratory and

13 injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28

14 U.S.C. § 1343; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

15

INTRODUCTIONl

16

4. Photography is not a crime; it is a means of artistic expression. In

17 public spaces, on public streets and from public sidewalks, no law bars Los

18 Angeles residents and visitors from photographing the world around them, from

19 documenting their own lives or using their lenses to find the sublime in the

20 commonplace.

21

5. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department ("LASD") has taken a

22 different, and erroneous, view of photography. LASD deputies have repeatedly

23 subjected the three Plaintiffs in this action, and others, to detention, search, and

24 interrogation simply because they took pictures from public streets. LASD

25 deputies have also ordered some Plaintiffs, and others, not to photograph at all

26
27 J The allegations of this complaint are based on information and belief, unless otherwise specified.
28

I

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:263

from public places where photography is not prohibited. These acts plainly violate

2 Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to free expression and their Fourth Amendment

3 right to be free of unjustified searches and seizures.

4

6. For as long as human society has existed, we have turned our creative

5 attentions to exploring not only the fantastic and the grand, but also daily life

6 around us. From early cave paintings that depict hunting and farming, scenes of

7 peasant life in illustrated manuscripts, the "genre painting" works of 17th Century

8 Dutch and Flemish painters, the Impressionists such as Monet who broke with the

9 establishment's preference for pastoral landscapes or classical themes in favor of

10 the industrial scenes or depictions of workers and artists, to 20th century American

11 artists like Edward Hopper (who painted city life in works like Nighthawks)-

12 painters have captured beauty and humanity in everyday subjects.

13

7. Photographers, too, have used their talents and skills to mine daily life

14 for their art. Through its Artists Project, the Works Progress Administration in the

15 193 Os sent photographers forth to document America and the WPA, a mission that

16 guided photographers like Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans into careers that

17 blended documentary and artistic styles and shaped art photography for decades to

18 come. Some of the 20th century's best-known photographers captured urban street

19 life, transit, and industrial scenes: photographs of the New York subways by

20 Walker Evans, Bruce Davidson, and William Claxton,2 trains and stations by

21 O. Winston Link,3 industrial equipment by Bernd and Hilda Becher, 4 images of

22
23 2 See, e.g., Bruce Davidson and Alihur allman, SUBWAY (Aperture 1986); Walker Evans, MANY ARE CALLED (Houghton Mifflin 1966); Charles I-ragen, What Walker
24 Evans Saw on His Subway Rides, N.Y. Times (Dec. 31, 1991), available at
25 http://www.nytimes.comIl991112/31 / arts/review-photography-what-walker-evanssaw-on-his-subway-rides.html.
26 3 See generally Website ofthe Link Museum at http://www.linkmuseum.org.
27 4 See, e.g., Blake Stimson, The Photographic Comportment ofBernd and Hilla Becher, Tate Papers (Tate Museum 2004), available at http://www.tate.org.uk/
28 (cont'd)

2

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:264

urban New York in Jacob Riis's How The Other HalfLives5 and Andy Warhol's

2 Street Diaries/' or the romance of the Paris street in Robert Doisneau's iconic Le 3 Baiser De L 'Hotel De Ville. 7

4

8. With digital cameras now inexpensive and ubiquitous, and capable of

5 taking thousands of photographs with no developing costs, photography today is

6 no longer practiced only by dedicated artists and professionals, but has become a

7 widely used mode of expression. One photo-sharing website, Flickr, reportedly

8 stored 5 billion photos as of September 20 I0, while, at the time, social-networking

9 site Facebook reported its users uploaded half that number (2.5 billion) every 10 month.8

11

9. Plaintiffs also photograph the world around them. But LASD

12 deputies detained and searched Plaintiff Shawn Nee for photographing turnstiles

13 on the Los Angeles Metro, asking ifhe planned to sell the photos to Al Qaeda and

14 threatening to put his name on the FBI's "hit list." LASD deputies detained and

15 searched Plaintiff Moore while he was photographing drivers for a news story,

16 accusing him of "suspicious activity." LASD deputies detained and searched

17 Plaintiff Quentin while he was photographing the brilliantly lit refineries in South

18 Los Angeles at night, placing him in the back of a squad car for about forty-five 19

20 research/tateresearch/tatepapers/04spring/stimson_paper.htm.
21 5 Jacob A. Riis, How the Other HalfLives: Studies Among the Tenements ofNew York, (Charles Scribner's Sons J890).
22 6 See Jonas Mekas, Andy Warhol's Street Diary: Photographs 1981-86,' essay
23 from exhibition catalog (Deborah Bell Photographs 2010), available at http://jonasmekasfilms.com/diary/?p=68 7.
24 7 See, e.g. Classic Kiss Shot Sold at Auction, B.B.C. News (Apr. 25, 2005)
25 (reporting on the 2005 sale of an original print for 155,000 Euros), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ enteliainment/4481789.stm.
26 8 John D. Sutter, 5 billionth photo uploaded to Flicla', CNN (Sept. 20, 2010),
27 available at http://articles.cnn.com/201 0-09-20/techlflickr.5.billion_1_photosharing-site-f1ickr- facebook.
28

3

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:265

minutes before releasing him. On separate occasions, LASD deputies have ordered

2 Nee and Quentin not to photograph from public sidewalks. And others besides

3 plaintiffs have suffered similar treatment at the hands ofLASD.

4

10. The LASD's policy and practices of targeting photographers did not

5 develop spontaneously. Over the past several years, law enforcement agencies

6 across the country have implemented "suspicious activity reporting" programs,

7 under which officers are trained to report certain categories of behavior believed to

8 be potential indicators of terrorism. Many departments include photography as one

9 such "suspicious activity" that should be reported. LASD's policy and practice of

10 subjecting photographers to search and detention, and of ordering people not to

11 photograph in public places where photography is generally allowed, results from a

12 deliberate extension of, or improper training on, these "suspicious activity

13 reporting" programs.

14

11. In the face of the long tradition of photographic art, and the wide

15 embrace of photography today, LASD' s custom and practice of detaining,

16 searching, and interrogating people simply for lawfully taking photographs in

17 public not only violates the First and Fourth Amendment, but it also serves no

18 legitimate purpose. LASD's custom and practice of allowing its officers to

19 prohibit photography that is perfectly lawful violates the First Amendment and

20 does not make the public safer.

21

12. By this action, Plaintiffs seek to put an end to LASD harassment of

22 photographers and to obtain a ruling from this Court that photography alone cannot

23 be a basis for criminal suspicion, detention and search.

24

PARTIES

25

13. Plaintiff Shawn Nee is a Los Angeles-based award-winning

26 photographer and aspiring professional photojournalist. His primary interests are

27 in documentary photography, particularly in capturing poverty and street life in the

28 Hollywood area, as well as other images of urban public life. Much of Nee's work

4

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:266

focuses on street photographs of various Hollywood communities, but he also

2 photographs in downtown Los Angeles, including capturing the homeless in Los

3 Angeles' skid row. I-lis photography has appeared on NBC, National Public Radio,

4 The New Yorker, The Atlantic, the Stranger, LAist.com, and The Advocate, and

5 has been exhibited at various galleries in Los Angeles. Nee is a founder and

6 member of the National Photographers' Rights Organization.

7

14. Plaintiff Greggory Moore is a reporter from Long Beach, California,

8 who works for the Long Beach Post. Moore does not consider himself a serious

9 photographer, but he is generally required to take any photographs that run

10 alongside his stories. Due to the nature of his job and news coverage, Moore

11 intends to continue taking pictures of newsworthy events, including pictures of

12 public facilities in the Los Angeles area, including courthouses, subways, and other

13 public buildings.

14

15. Plaintiff Shane Quentin is an art photographer and part-time freelance

15 photographer based in Los Angeles, California. Quentin received a B.F.A. in

16 Sculpture/New Genres from OTIS College of Art and Design, and an M.F.A. in

17 Studio Art from U.C. Irvine, where he focused primarily on photography and video

18 work. His photographs have been exhibited at art galleries in Los Angeles.

19 Quentin also sells photographs commercially through stock photography services.

20 Quentin's interests include photographing industrial areas, often at night, and

21 Quentin's commercial photography primarily involves industrial subjects.

22

16. Plaintiff National Photographers' Rights Organization ("NPRO") is an

23 advocacy organization founded to educate photographers about their rights and to

24 support photographers who have been wrongfully detained in the course of taking

25 photographs or prevented from taking photographs in public places. The group has

26 a membership of several hundred nationwide, including about thirty in Los

27 Angeles, and has conducted events and actions aimed at educating photographers

28 and law enforcement about photographers' rights.

5

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:267

I

17. Defendant County of Los Angeles ("the County") is a county of the

2 State of California duly organized under the laws of the State of California.

3 Defendant County is charged by law with the administration and operation of

4 LASD and charged with the employment, control, supervision, discipline, training

5 and practices of its personnel and employees and with the formulation of its

6 policies, practices, and customs of its personnel and its employees.

7

18. Defendant LASD is a municipal corporation that provides law

8 enforcement services within the County. As part of its mandate, LASD polices the

9 Los Angeles County Metro Rail ("Metro Rail"), the rapid transit rail system

10 serving Los Angeles County, via contract with the Los Angeles County

II Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MfA"). LASD is responsible for the

12 assignment, training, supervision and discipline of deputy sheriffs assigned to the

13 Metro Rail, just as they are for any other deputy sheriff within LASD.

14

19. Defendant Richard Gylfie is, and at all times material herein was, a

15 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and the County, acting

16 within the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of

17 state law. Deputy Gylfie is sued in his individual capacity.

18

20. Defendant Officer Bayes is, and at all times material herein was, a

19 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and the County, acting

20 within the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of

21 state law. Deputy Bayes is sued in his individual capacity.

22

21. Defendant D'Andre Lampkin is, and at all times material herein was,

23 a duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

24 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

25 law. Deputy Lampkin is sued in his individual capacity.

26

22. Defendant Lashon O'Bannon is, and at all times material herein was,

27 a duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

28 the scope of her employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

6

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:268

1 law. Deputy O'Bannon is sued in her individual capacity.

2

23. Defendant Carlos L. Sanchez is, and at all times material herein was, a

3 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

4 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

5 law. Deputy Sanchez is sued in his individual capacity.

6

24. Defendant Jason Cartagena is, and at all times material herein was, a

7 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

8 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

9 law. Deputy Cartagena is sued in his individual capacity.

10

25. Defendant Michael A. Chacon is, and at all times material herein was,

11 a duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

12 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

13 law. Deputy Chacon is sued in his individual capacity.

14

26. Defendant Marina Garcia is, and at all times material herein was, a

15 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

16 the scope of her employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

17 law. Deputy Garcia is sued in her individual capacity.

18

27. Defendant Ryck Burwell is, and at all times material herein was, a

19 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

20 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

21 law. Deputy Burwell is sued in his individual capacity.

22

28. Defendant Gustavo Carranza is, and at all times material herein was, a

23 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

24 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

25 law. Deputy Carranza is sued in his individual capacity.

26

29. Defendant Ernie King is, and at all times material herein was, a duly

27 appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within the

28 scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state law.

7

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:269

1 Deputy King is sued in his individual capacity.

2

30. Defendant Anthony Paez is, and at all times material herein was, a

3 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

4 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

5 law. Deputy Paez is sued in his individual capacity.

6

31. Defendant Jose Carbajal, Jr., is, and at all times material herein was, a

7 duly appointed deputy and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

8 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

9 law. Deputy Carbajal is sued in his individual capacity.

10

32. Defendant Maurice Hill is, and at all times material herein was, a duly

II appointed sergeant and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within the

12 scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state law.

13 Sergeant Hill is sued in his individual capacity.

14

33. Defendant Salvador Becerra is, and at all times material herein was, a

15 duly appointed sergeant and agent of Defendants LASD and County, acting within

16 the scope of his employment with LASD and the County and under color of state

17 law. Sergeant Becerra is sued in his individual capacity.

18

34. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued as Does I through

19 30 are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue these Defendants by fictitious

20 names. Doe Defendants include the supervisors at LASD and County who directly

21 approved the acts, policies and training described herein, as well as agents,

22 officers, and employees ofLASD and County who are liable in connection with

23 one or more of the claims sued upon here and are responsible in some manner for

24 the wrongful acts and conduct alleged herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint

25 to show Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they have been

26 ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and herein allege, that such Doe

27 Defendants are residents of California.

28

8

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:270

1

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2 1. First Incident: Defendants' Unlawful Detention of Nee on the LA Metro

3

35. On the afternoon of Saturday, October 31,2009, Nee bought a valid

4 ticket for the Metro Rail in order to ride home after a day of photographing.

5

36. When Nee arrived at his stop at the Hollywood and Western Metro

6 Rail station, he got off the train. He then walked toward the turnstiles and stopped

7 just inside the exit to examine the newly installed turnstiles. Nee was aware that

8 the new turnstile machines were highly controversial and the subject of contentious

9 debate in Los Angeles. Nee decided to snap a few quick photographs before he

10 left the station.

11

37. As Nee was photographing the turnstiles, Defendants LASD Deputies

12 Gylfie and Bayes approached him and asked why he was taking pictures. 9 Nee

13 asked Gylfie ifhe was being detained. Gylfie responded that Nee was being

14 detained because Gylfie wanted to know why Nee was taking pictures in the

15 subway.

16

38. When Nee protested that he wasn't doing anything wrong, Gylfie told

17 Nee that the subway station was a terrorist target, and that MTA rules prohibit

18 photography.

19

39. When Nee again protested that MTA rules did not prohibit

20 photography, Gylfie asked for his identification and told him: "1 want to know

21 who you are, and I want to know why you're taking pictures of the subway system.

22 AI Qaeda would love to buy your pictures, so I want to know if you are in cahoots

23 with AI Qaeda to sell these pictures to them for terrorist purposes. That's, that's a

24 crime. You understand?" When Nee again said he was committing no crime,

25 Gylfie told Nee he was "being detained until 1 have determined that you have not

26
27 9 Nee captured the events on video, which he subsequently posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY2cCPW3H7 g.
28

9

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:271

1 committed a crime."

2

40. When Nee continued to protest his innocence of any wrongdoing,

3 Gylfie said, "maybe I should just arrest you." He then grabbed Nee and pushed

4 him up to a nearby wall and ordered him to put his hands behind his back, interlace

5 his fingers, and spread his legs. Gylfie then held Nee's hands behind his back

6 while he patted Nee down and searched through his pockets. Defendant Bayes

7 witnessed and participated in the incident and assisted in Nee's detention. Gylfie

8 neither asked for, nor received, Nee's consent to conduct the search.

9

41. During the search, Gylfie removed the contents of Nee's back left

10 pocket (including his money, identification, phone, marker and various papers and

11 receipts) and placed them on the ground. Gylfie and Bayes then scanned Nee's

12 driver's license to conduct a warrant check.

13

42. Gylfie continued to question Nee, telling him, "1 want to determine

14 whether you're committing a crime or not. If you're down here taking pictures and

15 selling them to Al Qaeda so they can blow up our subway system, I've got a

16 problem with that. That's a crime. Is that clear to you or not? ... For the safety of

17 the public, riding the trains." Gylfie then proceeded to lecture Nee about

18 worldwide terrorist attacks.

19

43. Several minutes into the detention, Nee informed Gylfie that he was

20 exercising his right to remain silent. In response, Gylfie told him, "You know, I'll

21 just submit your name to T.L.O. [terrorism liaison officer]. Every time your

22 driver's license gets scanned, every time you take a plane, any time you go on any

23 type of public transit system where they look at your identification, you're going to

24 be stopped. You will be detained. You'll be searched. You will be on the F.B.l.'s

25 hit list. Is that what you want? ... Every time you move, you will be stopped and

26 detained and searched. And delayed."

27

44. Gylfie then again asked Nee what he was taking pictures of. As Nee

28 remained silent, Gylfie continued: "Okay, so you're taking pictures of the

10

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:272

1 infrastructure of the subway system, possibly to, uh, plant a bomb or something?"

2 Gylfie told Nee that his silence raised more suspicion and again said that he would

3 put Nee's name on "the hit list."

4

45. Gylfie's and Bayes' unlawful and unreasonable detention,

5 interrogation, and search of Nee continued for nearly 30 minutes, during which

6 time Deputies Gylfie and Bayes made clear to Nee that he was not free to leave.

7 Gylfie and Bayes released Nee without issuing a citation and told him to leave the

8 Metro Rail Station.

9

46. Nee subsequently filed a complaint with LASD, providing them with

lOa link to the video footage. On about June 13,2011, Nee received a letter signed

11 by Capt. Daniel S. Cruz, of LASD's Transit Services North Bureau, about his

12 complaint, which stated, "Based on thorough investigation by Internal Affairs and

13 a review of the audio and video of the incident, they determined that the deputy did

14 not violate any department policies."

15

47. The Metro "Photography Guidelines" listed on the MTA website

16 provide that photography within the Metro Rail system is permitted with limited 17 exceptions. 10 So long as the photography is not for commercial purposes, no

18 permit is required if the photographic equipment is hand held, no tripods or flash

19 are used, and the images are not taken inside moving trains. Nee complied with all

20 of these limitations, and was not taking these photographs for commercial

21 purposes. Nee followed MTA rules and was otherwise engaged in lawful,

22 protected activity when Gylfie and Bayes detained him and accused him of

23 conspiring with terrorists.

24

25 10 The Metro photography guidelines are available at
26 http://www.metro.net/about/filming-metro/metro-filming-photography-guidelines/.
27 In addition to the posted guidelines, the MTA has clarified no permit is necessary
to take photographs for noncommercial purposes. 28

11

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:273

I

48. As a result of his unlawful and unreasonable detention, Nee now

2 experiences extreme anxiety over riding the Metro Rail and photographing on

3 MTA property and seldom rides the subway anymore.

4 II. Second Incident: Defendants Unlawfully Prevented Nee From

5

Photographing on Hollywood Boulevard

6

49. On Sunday, May 1,20 II, Nee was photographing people walking on

7 the street along Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, California, as part of a long-

8 running project to build a book of photographs on the street life of Hollywood.

9

50. While he was photographing, Nee became aware of a commotion on

10 Hollywood near Vine, in front of the entrance to the Hollywood / Vine Metro

II Station that is in the base of the W Hotel. Nee approached and saw four to five

12 LASD cars and an ambulance pulled over on the street. About ten officers huddled

13 around the cars, including a senior officer who was videotaping the scene. The

14 incident attracted a number of curious observers, many of whom stopped on the

15 sidewalk as they walked down Hollywood Boulevard.

16

51. Nee began to take pictures of the scene from the public sidewalk in

17 front of the W Hotel and Metro entrance. The sidewalk where Nee stood is wide

18 compared with many in the area, and, as part of the Hollywood Star Walk, is a

19 tourist attraction in its own right. Nee was standing on the Hollywood Star Walk

20 while he photographed, near the star for Shania Twain. Nee photographed while

21 some pedestrians walked past and others stood looking at the incident. The

22 deputies had not closed the sidewalk, nor were Nee or other onlookers blocking the

23 free passage of pedestrians.

24

52. Shortly after he began photographing, an LASD deputy approached

25 Nee. II

26
27 II Nee captured the incident from this point forward on video, which he subsequently posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQfLXmVXguw.
28

12

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:274

53. Upon information and belief, Defendant D'Andre Lampkin was the

2 deputy who approached Nee.

3

54. The deputy told Nee that he was standing "between the W [Hotel]

4 building and MTA property" and that "they don't allow any photography between

5 the W building and MTA property." The deputy also told him that a person at the

6 scene was receiving medical treatment and could sue Nee if Nee took his picture.

7 The deputy told Nee that ifhe wanted to take photographs, he would ask Nce to

8 move from his current location to the other side of the W Hotel, nearly half a block

9 away.

10

55. Nee protested that he was not doing anything unlawful, and asked if

11 the sidewalk was still open, to which the deputy said that public access was

12 limited. Nee asked the deputy ifhe could merely stand and take photographs

13 where other individuals were standing watching the scene, but the deputy told him

14 he could not and again directed Nee to relocate behind the W Hotel, indicating that

15 he was giving Nee a "lawful order." During this exchange, Nee asked to speak to a

16 supervisor, and the deputy responded that it was his supervisor who had instructed

17 him to tell Nee to move.

18

56. Nee moved to the property line and continued taking photographs,

19 though his view at this point was obscured. Nee waited for about thirty minutes to

20 speak to a supervisor about not being allowed to photograph while standing next to

21 others surrounding the incident. When an officer Nee recognized as a supervisor

22 by his insignia walked by, Nee asked to speak to him. As the supervisor stopped,

23 Nee explained that one of the deputies was preventing him from photographing the

24 incident from a public sidewalk. The supervisor said, "Alright, alright," and

25 walked away from Nee.

26

57. Upon information and belief, that supervisor was Sergeant Becerra.

27

28

13

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:275

III. Third Incident: Defendants' Unlawful Detention of Nee at Hollywood

2

and Highland

3

58. On February 2,2012, around 12:35 p.m., Plaintiff Nee was walking

4 along Hollywood Boulevard and snapping pictures along the way. At the entrance

5 to the Hollywood and Highland Metro Station, Nee saw two LASD deputies

6 standing at the top of the Metro stairs talking to two young women. Nee snapped a

7 couple of pictures.

8

59. As Nee snapped pictures, one of the deputies raised his hand and

9 yelled to Nee, "No pictures. Hey! What are you doing?" Nee stated that he could

10 take pictures in public, and that doing so was his constitutional right. The deputy

11 said, "Not of me, no." The second deputy told Nee that the two young women

12 were minors. When Nee said that it did not matter, the deputy said it did and told

13 Nee to "come here." Both deputies approached Nee.

14

60. Nee asked the second deputy if he was being detained. The deputy

15 said, "Yeah, you are being detained." Nee asked him why, and the deputy told him

16 that it was for photographing minors.

17

61. One deputy twisted Nee's arm behind his back and told him to drop

18 his bag and camera, which Nee did. The deputy then walked Nee to a nearby wall.

19 There was a lot of tourist traffic in the area, and a crowd quickly formed of people

20 trying to see what was going on.

21

62. The deputy told Nee to face the wall and to put his hands against it,

22 then frisked Nee: he took his hat and glasses (and kept them after Nee objected

23 that he needed his glasses to see), and took Nee's cell phone out of the front pocket

24 of his sweatshirt. The deputy then handcuffed Nee tightly.

25

63. While one deputy searched Nee at the wall, the other deputy opened

26 his bag and searched it. The deputy did not ask Nee for permission to search

27 through his backpack, and Nee told the deputy that he did not want his bag

28 searched, but the deputy ignored him and continued to search the bag, then

14

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 17 of 31 Page ID #:276

I dropped it to the ground when he was finished.

2

64. When the deputies had frisked Nee and searched his bag, they walked

3 him over to an LASD patrol car and put him into it, still handcuffed. Inside the

4 car, the deputies questioned Nee extensively and repeatedly about the pictures he

5 was taking, as well as his personal background.

6

65. Eventually, the deputies told Nee they would let him go. They took

7 him out of the car, removed the handcuffs, and released him without any citation.

8 The entire detention lasted approximately 25 minutes.

9

66. Throughout the encounter, the deputies treated Nee roughly, leaving

10 Nee's wrists with marks where the tight handcuffs restrained him, and threatened

II him with further physical force when he spoke to them to object to the stop or his

12 treatment.

13

67. Upon information and belief, the two deputies who detained Nee in

14 this incident were Defendants Anthony Paez and Jose Carbajal, Jr.

15 IV. Fourth Incident: Defendants' Unlawful Detention of Moore

16

68. On June 2, 2011, Moore was working on a story for the Long Beach

17 Post about an April 2011 statewide campaign called Distracted Driving Awareness

18 Month. He left his Long Beach apartment to try to take pictures of drivers talking

19 or texting while driving to accompany his story. Moore walked from his apartment

20 to a nearby busy intersection at Ocean Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue in Long

21 Beach, and began taking pictures of drivers as they stopped at the traffic light. It

22 was early afternoon, and Moore was dressed in aT-shirt, shorts, and running shoes.

23

69. Moore had been photographing for several minutes when a group of

24 several LASD deputies approached and asked him ifhe was taking pictures ofthe

25 courthouse. Before Moore could answer fully, one ofthe deputies told him to step

26 away from the street. The deputies took Moore's camera, while one told him to

27 put his hands behind his back. A deputy held Moore's hands behind him while

28 another one patted him down thoroughly, including grabbing hold ofthe keys in

15

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 18 of 31 Page ID #:277

his pocket and manipulating them, groping the area of his groin twice, pulling up

2 his T-shirt and checking the waistband of his pants.

3

70. Upon information and belief, three of the deputies who actively

4 engaged in the questioning and search of Moore were Defendants Burwell,

5 Carranza, and King.

6

71. As they patted Moore down, the officers at1'anged themselves in a ring

7 around Moore, so he could not leave, and proceeded to question him. Moore

8 counted eight officers surrounding him.

9

72. One of the officers, whom Moore later identified as Sgt. Hill, asked

10 Moore again what he was doing. When Moore said he was a reporter and

11 explained the story he was working on, Sgt. Hill asked what news publication he

12 worked for.

13

73. After Moore had responded to the deputies' questions, he asked why

14 they had stopped him. Sgt. Hill told Moore that he was across the street from the

15 Long Beach Superior Court. Sgt. Hill told him that the cOUlihouse was a "critical

16 facility" and that his apparent photography of the courthouse was "suspicious

17 activity." When Moore asked if taking pictures ofthe courthouse was illegal, Sgt.

18 Hill replied that it was not, but told Moore that if his deputies get a call about

19 someone photographing the cOUlihouse, they have to respond.

20

74. At some point, Moore asked the deputy holding his camera to return

21 it. The deputy responded that he wanted to see the photographs Moore had taken.

22 Moore showed the deputies the snapshots of drivers he had taken on the screen on

23 his digital camera. Moore believed from the officer's response and his demeanor

24 that they would only return the camera if Moore showed them the pictures.

25

75. The LASD deputies held Moore for about fifteen to twenty minutes.

26 Before they allowed him to leave, one of the deputies demanded that Moore

27 provide his name, address, phone number, driver's license number, name of the

28 publication he worked for, and the publisher's name and contact information. The

16

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 19 of 31 Page ID #:278

deputies eventually released Moore without issuing him any citation.

2

76. Later that day, Moore called Sgt. Hill attempting to inquire further

3 into his detention. Hill told him: "We were detaining you because of a suspicious

4 circumstance to ascertain your intention." Sgt. Hill invited Moore to meet in

5 person about the incident, which Moore did. At the meeting, Sgt. Hill told Moore

6 that the investigation was related to terrorism and that "taking pictures of the

7 courthouse does meet the standard for a pat-down search."

8

77. Following the incident, the National Press Photographers Association

9 ("NPPA") wrote to LASD on July 14,2011, to express its concern about the

10 conduct of the LASD officers. On about August 18, 20 11, NPPA received a letter

11 signed by Sheriff Baca stating that the incident had been investigated and

12 defending the deputies' actions.

13

78. Moore followed up with another interview with LASD Captain Steven

14 M. Roller, who identified himself as "unit commander" officer over the Long

15 Beach courthouse. Capt. Roller defended the deputies' decision to pat Moore

16 down. Roller told Moore that courthouses were potential terrorist targets, so that

17 taking pictures near a courthouse would be suspicious activity, and in investigating

18 somebody taking pictures near a courthouse who is a "potential terrorist," deputies

19 would be entitled to pat him down. Capt. Roller said that if he had been on the

20 scene, he would have patted Moore down.

21 V. Fifth Incident: Defendants' First Unlawful Detention of Quentin

22

79. On December 31,2009, at about 1:00 a.m., Quentin and another

23 photographer were taking photographs of a large refinery from the corner of 24 Wilmington Avenue and East 223 rd Street in Carson, California.

25

80. Both Quentin and the other photographer he was with that evening

26 take pictures of industrial areas to sell through stock photo services. By using

27 long exposures and creative framing, Quentin creates dramatic and artistic

28 depictions of industrial buildings. To take pictures of industrial scenery at night,

17

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 20 of 31 Page ID #:279

Quentin uses a large, professional-quality camera and takes pictures openly, using

2 a tripod.

3

81. While Quentin and his companion were photographing from a public

4 sidewalk by the intersection, an LASD deputy pulled alongside them in her car and

5 began yelling at them aggressively, saying they had no right to be there and could

6 not take photographs. They protested that they were on a public sidewalk and were

7 violating no laws, and asked why she was telling them to leave, but the deputy

8 continued, without explanation, to yell at them and to order them repeatedly to stop

9 photographing and leave the area.

10

82. Quentin and his companion complied with the deputy's orders and

11 stopped photographing, then walked to a nearby diner and ate a late meal. As they

12 walked out of the diner to return to their car, they began photographing the refinery

13 agam. The LASD deputy that had confronted them returned and again confronted

14 them. This time, she told them that it was suspicious that they were out

15 photographing so late, and threatened to place them on the "no fly" list.

16

83. Upon information and belief, the LASD deputy who confronted

17 Quentin and his companion was Defendant Lashon O'Bannon.

18

84. After a few minutes, another LASD officer puIIed up and began

19 speaking with Quentin and his companion. The second officer took a calmer tone,

20 but told the two photographers that though he understood their frustrations, they

21 should not anger the first deputy any further and, given the late hour, should leave

22 the area. The second officer told them that their behavior looked suspicious and

23 suggested that they might be affiliated with terrorists. Quentin and the other

24 photographer again protested, politely but repeatedly, that they were breaking no

25 law. But the second officer repeatedly told the two that they could not continue

26 photographing and had to leave the area. Quentin and the other photographer

27 eventuaIIy complied, stopped taking photographs, and left. The LASD deputies

28 did not issue either Quentin or his friend a citation.

18

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 21 of 31 Page ID #:280

1 VI. Sixth Incident: Defendants' Second Unlawful Detention of Quentin

2

85. On January 21,201 I, an LASD deputy stopped Quentin when he was

3 photographing another refinery by himself at about I :25 a.m. The deputy

4 immediately ordered him to place his hands behind his back and held them there

5 while he patted him down thoroughly. The deputy removed the contents of

6 Quentin's pockets and placed them on the hood of the LASD car.

7

86. While the deputy searched Quentin, he began asking what Quentin

8 was doing there and why he was out so late. Quentin cooperated, explaining that

9 he was taking photos.

10

87. After searching Quentin, the deputy placed him in the back ofthe

11 LASD car and waited outside. Before doing so, however, the deputy asked

12 Quentin if his camera was recording video and told him that he had to turn it off if

13 it was.

14

88. Within a few minutes, about four more LASD officers had arrived in

15 at least two more cars. The deputies took turns questioning Quentin in the back of

16 the LASD cruiser. The deputies again asked what he was doing photographing the

17 refinery, and why he was photographing this refinery in particular. They also asked

18 Quentin what he did with the pictures he took and whether he was affiliated with

19 any terrorist organizations or a member of any street gang. They asked where he

20 lived, about his job, and where he had parked that night. They asked some

21 questions several times. After about forty-five minutes, the deputies released

22 Quentin from the car.

23

89. After they released him, Quentin asked what would happen ifhe kept

24 taking pictures. They responded that they would take him to jail and let a judge

25 decide what to do with him. As a result, Quentin did not take any more

26 photographs. The deputies told him that they would give him a ride to his car.

27 When Quentin said he would walk because it was only a block away, the deputies

28 told him they had to give him a ride. The deputies did not issue Quentin a citation.

19

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 22 of 31 Page ID #:281

90. Upon information and belief, the deputies who detained and question

2 Quentin were Defendants Carlos L. Sanchez, Jason Cartagena, Marina Garcia, and

3 Michael A. Chacon.

4

91. As a result of these incidents, Quentin has suffered emotional distress

5 and has been reluctant to take photographs of industrial areas.

6 VII. Additional Incidents

7

92. The experiences of Plaintiffs Nee, Moore, and Quentin are not

8 isolated. In addition to the five incidents that have given rise to this litigation,

9 LASD has stopped and seized other photographers, as well as telling

10 photographers that they are not allowed to photograph public buildings from public

11 sidewalks or other places they are legally allowed to be.

12

93. Ted Soqui is a well-known freelance photojournalist based in Los

13 Angeles, California, where he has worked for decades. On April 28, 2011, Soqui

14 was photographing the exterior of the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail and

15 nearby bail bonds businesses for use in a Los Angeles Weeldy story on deputy

16 abuses at the jail. Standing only on public sidewalks, he took photographs openly

17 in broad daylight. As he was walking back to his car, an LASD squad car pulled

18 up to him, and a deputy got out and ordered him to come over. More deputies

19 arrived until a total of six deputies were present at his subsequent questioning.

20 Soqui told the deputies that he was taking pictures for a newspaper, but refused to

21 answer what the story was about. At that moment, the lead deputy put his hand on

22 his gun, moved uncomfortably close to Soqui, and asked to search him. Soqui

23 complied. After deputies took Soqui's license and used it to run a warrant check,

24 the officers released him, telling him that his detention was a national security

25 issue. They informed him that photography was not allowed on Bauchet Street, a

26 public street with sidewalks that run between Twin Towers Correctional Facility

27 and Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail.

28

94. Doran Barons is a photographer, radio and broadcast engineer, and

20

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 23 of 31 Page ID #:282

1 radio host. In about August 2008, Barons was awaiting the Metro Rail subway at

2 the North Hollywood Metro station in Hollywood, California. While waiting, he

3 began taking photographs of lights and subway trains in the station, all the while

4 remaining on the station platform in areas accessible to the public, and otherwise

5 complying with MTA rules regarding photography. Soon after he began taking

6 photos, an LASD deputy came up to him and ordered him to stop photographing,

7 telling Barons that photography was not permitted on MTA property. Barons

8 responded that photography was lawful and allowed, but the deputy demanded that

9 Barons stop photographing and asked for his driver's license. The deputy released

10 Barons without a citation. Barons thereafter became reluctant to ride the Metro

11 Rail or to photograph in the Metro Rail station.

12

95. In mid-September 2011, Catherine Dent was taking photographs of

13 the exterior and signage for Men's Central Jail from Bauchet Street for use in a

14 video project. She had been photographing openly on the publicly accessible

15 sidewalk using a large, professional-quality SLR camera, when two LASD

16 deputies driving in the opposite direction made a U-turn and pulled their car onto

17 the sidewalk near her. The two deputies got out and ordered Dent to come over to

18 them. They asked her to show them her pictures, which she refused to do. They

19 asked for her identification. She told them it was in her car, which was parked in a

20 lot some distance away. They told her to go get it. She replied that she would

21 show it to them if they accompanied her to her car, then turned and walked toward

22 her car. When she arrived at her car several minutes later, no LASD officers were

23 in sight. Dent got into her car and began to drive toward the parking lot exit, when

24 another LASD car pulled across the exit so as to block it and prevent her from

25 leaving the lot. Dent had to stop her car to avoid hitting the deputies' car. Two

26 deputies got out and approached Dent in the manner of a traffic stop and asked for

27 her identification, which she produced. They circled her car and examined her

28 license plate. They also asked her to show them the photographs she had taken,

21

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #:283

which she refused to do. They asked why she was taking photographs, and she

2 replied it was for a school project. Upon further questioning, Dent told them it was

3 for an extension school class in film and video production at UCLA. The deputies

4 released her after about five minutes.

5

96. On October 19,2011, Plaintiff Nee was standing in the

6 Wilshire/Normandie Metro station, outside the ticketed area, waiting for protestors

7 from the Occupy LA movement to arrive, when LASD deputies standing nearby

8 told him not to take pictures of them, and told him that photography was not

9 permitted in the Metro station. Nee was not taking photographs at the time, but

10 was holding his camera.

II VIII. LASD Training and Suspicious Activity Reporting

12

97. The incidents described above paint a clear pattern of harassment of

13 photographers at the hands ofLASD. Upon information and belief, this custom

14 stems from LASD policy and training providing that photography is, without more,

15 a suspicious activity potentially indicative of terrorism. This policy and training

16 predictably leads to the unconstitutional detention of individuals taking

17 photographs in public spaces, and to the chilling of their First Amendment right to

18 take photographs.

19

98. Over the past several years, law enforcement agencies across the

20 country have begun instituting programs to get officers to investigate and repOli

21 information that is perceived to be potentially related to national security. To that

22 end, with the encouragement ofthe U.S. Department of Homeland Security and

23 Director of National Intelligence ("DNI"), many departments have instituted

24 "suspicious activity reporting" programs. These programs require that line officers

25 be trained to identify and report certain kinds of activity (including noncriminal

26 conduct) that may have potential counterterrorism value to their department's

27 countelierrorism officers. This information can then be used and potentially

28 shared with other agencies through "fusion" centers.

22

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 25 of 31 Page ID #:284

1

99. "Suspicious activity reporting" was initially developed by the Los

2 Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") under their Special Order 11, which

3 requires officers repOli as "suspicious activities" any number of different criminal

4 and noncriminal activity, including when an individual "[tJakes pictures or video

5 footage (with no apparent esthetic value, i.e. camera angles, security equipment,

6 security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc.)" and "[eJngages in

7 suspected pre-operational surveillance (uses binoculars or cameras, takes

8 measurements, draws diagrams, etc.)."

9

100. Based in part on Special Order 11 as a model, the DNI has issued

10 standards for "suspicious activity repOliing.,,12 These standards list as a

11 "suspicious activity," among other things, "[tJaking pictures or video of facilities,

12 buildings, or infrastructure in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable

13 person."

14

101. Likewise, the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation's ("FBI") descriptions

15 of its eGuardian suspicious activity reporting system indicate that reportable

16 activities include "photography of key infrastructure facilities.,,13

17

102. Building upon the foundation developed by LAPD and DNI, LASD

18 implemented an analogous suspicious activity reporting program. LASD policy

19 5.09/490.10, titled "Notification Process for Potential Homeland Security

20 Activity," details the requirements of what it calls "Potential Homeland Security

21 Activity" ("PHS A"), specifically stating that "[tJhe reporting of PHSA is also

22 known nationally as 'Suspicious Activity Reporting. '" The policy emphasizes that

23 all LASD personnel understand PHSA reporting procedures. It further states that

24
25 12 See, e.g., Information Sharing Environment, Functional Standard, Suspicious Activity RepOliing, Version 1.5 (May 2009) ("Functional Standards"), available at
26 http://nsi.ncirc.gov/documents/ISE-FS-200_ISE-SAR_Functional_Standard_V 1_
27 5_Issued_2009.pdf. 13 See http://www.fbi.gov/foia/privacy-impact-assessments/eguardian-threat.
28

23

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 26 of 31 Page ID #:285

personnel should be advised that PHSA "may not rise to the level of a crime" and

2 "may not have a clear nexus to terrorism."

3

103. As part of its PHSA program, LASD's Field Operations Directive 03-

4 03 (Apr. 23, 2003) establishes clearance code 709-"Possible Terrorism Related

5 lncident" to be employed by LASD personnel who respond to an incident related

6 to terrorist activities. The first example listed of when such a code should be used

7 is "suspicious persons videotaping public transpoliation, government facilities or

8 local critical facilities."

9

104. The actions ofthe LASD officers described above were not the

10 unauthorized acts of rogue officers. To the contrary, the officers were acting

11 consistent with LASD policy and training. The nature of "suspicious activity

12 reporting" programs, the existence of such a program at LASD, and the pattern and

13 practice by LASD personnel of detention, harassment and prohibition of

14 photographers (and validation of that conduct by superiors who investigate

15 complaints), demonstrate that LASD has adopted, through training or custom, a

16 policy of detaining and searching photographers who photograph what government

17 buildings, infrastructure, or anything officers perceive to be a potential terrorist

18 target. LASD effectively trains its officers that such photography is prohibited, or

19 can be prohibited at the officers' discretion, even if the photographer is in a public

20 place and violating no law or rule while photographing.

21

105. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs

22 and Defendants concerning Plaintiffs' right to take photographs in public spaces in

23 which photography is not otherwise prohibited without threat of interrogation,

24 harassment, or arrest.

25

106. Defendants contend that their actions as described herein compOli

26 with the United States Constitution. Defendants LASD and County of Los

27 Angeles contend that their policies and regulations with respect to photography

28 likewise comport with the United States Constitution.

24

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 27 of 31 Page ID #:286

107. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' actions as described herein

2 violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourth Amendments to the United

3 States Constitution and that, to the extent Defendants' conduct was authorized by a

4 policy or regulation, those policies or regulations suffer the same constitutional

5 defects.

6

108. Plaintiffs desire ajudicial determination of their rights and a

7 declaration regarding the constitutionality of Defendants' actions and any policies

8 or regulations that authorized such actions.

9

109. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that

10 Plaintiffs may ascertain their rights to take photographs in public spaces. Plaintiffs

11 have either partially or totally refrained from exercising this right for fear of

12 suffering harassment and arrest at the hands ofLASD deputies. Plaintiffs and

13 numerous other photographers, both novice and professional alike, will suffer

14 irreparable and lasting injury unless declaratory relief is granted, as Plaintiffs' right

15 to free speech under the First Amendment has been chilled by Defendants' actions.

16

CAUSES OF ACTION

17

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

18

Violation of the Fourth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

(Against All Defendants)

20

110. Plainti ffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

21 forth herein.

22

Ill. Defendants' actions described above violated Plaintiffs' rights under

23 the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by subjecting Plaintiffs to

24 unreasonable warrantless searches and seizures.

25

112. The violation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights occurred

26 pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by LASD and the County, of

27 having LASD officers detain, search, and interrogate photographers who

28 photograph in public places where photography is legal and where officers have no

25

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 28 of 31 Page ID #:287

1 reasonable basis to believe the photographer is engaged in any criminal activity or

2 is armcd or dangerous.

3

113. Defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional or

4 other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials

5 should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. §

6 1983.

7

114. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these

8 Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional and economic harm.

9

115. Plaintiffs all intend to continue photographing, but fear further

10 detention and harassment by the LASD. That fear prevents them from

11 photographing as much as they would like or in places they would like.

12

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

Violation of the First Amendment; 42 U.S.c. § 1983

14

(Against All Defendants)

15

116. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

16 forth herein.

17

117. Defendants' actions described herein violated Plaintiffs' rights under

18 the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting Plaintiffs

19 from exercising their constitutional right to free speech and expression, as well as

20 freedom of the press, and by retaliating against Plaintiffs for attempting to exercise

21 those same rights.

22

118. The violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights occurred pursuant

23 to a policy, custom, or practice, maintained by LASD and the County, of having

24 LASD officers prohibit photographers from photographing in public places where

25 photography is lawful, and of retaliating against photographers who exercise their

26 First Amendment rights to photograph in such places by detaining, searching, and

27 interrogating them.

28

119. Defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional or

26

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:288

1 other rights, of which Defendants knew, or of which reasonable public officials

2 should have known, rendering Defendants liable to Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C.

3 § 1983.

4

120. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of these

5 Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered significant emotional and economic harm.

6

121. Plaintiffs all intend to continue photographing in public, but fear

7 further detention and harassment by the LASD. That fear prevents them from

8 photographing as much as they would like or in places they would like.

9

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

Violation of Cal. Constitution, Art. I, § 2; Cal. Civil Code § 52.1

11

(By Plaintiffs Nee and Moore against the County and Doe Defendants)

12

122. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

13 forth herein.

14

123. Defendants' actions described in Paragraphs 37-42, 43-51 and 52-61,

15 above, violated the rights of Plaintiffs to free speech and expression under Article

16 J, section 2 of the California Constitution. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of these

17 rights through, among other means, the threat of force and intimidation.

18

124. Defendants' use of threats, intimidation and coercion, as well as their

19 attempts to use threats, intimidation and coercion, to deprive Plaintiffs of their

20 right to free speech and expression violates Plaintiffs' rights under California Civil

21 Code § 52.1 to be free from such threats, intimidation and coercion in the exercise

22 of rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the United States and California Constitutions.

23

125. On about October 28, 2011, Plaintiffs Nee and Moore filed claims for

24 damages with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors describing the

25 incidents set forth in Paragraphs 37-42 and 52-61, and seeking damages for

26 violations of California Constitution Article I, §§ 2 and 13, California Civil Code

27 § 52.1, and common law torts offalse imprisonment, intentional infliction of

28 emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The County

27

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 30 of 31 Page ID #:289

responded with letters mailed on December 21, 20 II, denying both Nee's claim

2 and Moore's.

3

126. On about March 20, 2011, Plaintiff Nee filed claims for damages with

4 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors describing the incident set forth at

5 Paragraphs 43-51, and seeking damages for violations of California Constitution

6 Article J, §§ 2 and 13, California Civil Code § 52.1, and common law torts offalse

7 imprisonment, intentional inf1iction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction

8 of emotional distress. The County responded with a letter mailed on May 8, 2012,

9 denying Nee's claim.

10

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

Violation of Cal. Constitution, Art. I, § 13; Cal. Civil Code § 52.1

12

(By Plaintiffs Nee and Moore against the County and Doe Defendants)

13

127. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the foregoing paragraphs as if set

14 forth herein.

15

128. Defendants' actions described in Paragraphs 43-51 and 52-61, above,

16 violated the rights of Plaintiffs to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures

17 under Article I, section 13 of the California Constitution. Defendants deprived

18 Plaintiffs of these rights through, among other means, the threat offorce and

19 intimidation.

20

129. Defendants' use ofthreats, intimidation and coercion, as well as their

21 attempts to use threats, intimidation and coercion, to gain compliance with, and

22 submission to Defendants' unlawful searches and seizures violated Plaintiffs'

23 rights under California Civil Code § 52.1 to be free from such threats, intimidation

24 and coercion in the exercise of rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the United States

25 and California Constitutions.

26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

27

130. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court enter a

28 judgment including:

28

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37 Filed 09/21/12 Page 31 of 31 Page ID #:290

1

a. A declaration that Defendants' actions as described herein violated the

2

First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

3

b. To the extent the Court finds that Defendants' conduct were

4

authorized by a policy or regulation, a declaration that those policies

5

or regulations are unconstitutional under the First and Fourth

6

Amendments to the United States Constitution;

7

c. As to the County of Los Angeles and LASD, an injunction to prevent

8

the unlawful detention, search, interrogation, and harassment of

9

photographers solely based on the fact they are taking photographs,

10

and to prevent LASD officers from prohibiting photography in public

11

places where photography otherwise violates no law.

12

d. As to all Defendants, compensatory and statutory damages for

13

violation ofthe laws and Constitution of the United States and State 0

14

California, in an amount to be determined at trial;

15

e. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

16

f. Any other relief as may be just and proper.

17

18 Dated: September 21, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

19

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA 20

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &

21

FELDLLP

22
23 24

=s B ~ Y! .~~ ~=~ ~ _ Peter Bibring

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28

29

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:302
Peter Bibring (SBN 223981) pbibring@aclu-sc.org
ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500; Fax: (213) 977-5297 (Additional counsel on Attachment)

v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; (continued on Attachment)

PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S).

CVII-08899 DDP (JCGx) SUMMONS

TO: DEFENDANT(S):

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached D complaint ~ Second amended complaint

D counterclaim D cross-claim or a motion under Rule 12 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer

or motion must be served on the plaintiffs attorney, Peter Bibring 1313 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017

, whose address is . If you fail to do so,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file

your answer or motion with the court.

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Dated: _--'--,1....:.......(J_Cf.l_('J_ ...... __

By: ----I--'=-------"iIh~

Deputy Clerk

nU~~~'Y'\\st\\\\\,'trl) vnit'~~: tes. 0 [Vse 60day, ifth,d'fendant i,th,Vaie"
l V I ' 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3)].

a, i, an ajJI,,, o"mpioY" ofth,

Allow,d

CV-OIA (l011l

SUMMONS

/ ) Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 37-1 Filed 09/21/12 )Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:303 ..
ATTACHMENT TO SUMMONS
Additional Plaintiff's Attorneys:
L. Rachel Lerman (SBN 193080) rlerman@akingump.com
Felix Lebron (SBN 232984) flebron@akingump.com
Sarah Gettings (SBN 260436) sgettings@akingump.com
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
Defendants continued:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SERGEANT MAURICE HILL, in his individual capacity; SERGEANT SALVADOR BECERRA, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY RICHARD GYLFIE, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY BAYES, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY D'ANDRE LAMPKIN, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY LASHON O'BANNON, in her individual capacity; DEPUTY CARLOS L. SANCHEZ, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY JASON CARTAGENA, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY MICHAELA. CHACON, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY MARINA GARCIA, in her individual capacity; DEPUTY RYCK BURWELL, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY GUSTAVO CARRANZA, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY ERNIE KING, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY ANTHONY PAEZ, in his individual capacity; DEPUTY JOSE CARBAJAL, JR., in his individual capacity; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive.

 
 Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:2976
Exhibit A

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:2977
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into between: (1) Plaintiffs Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin, Greggory Moore, and the National Photographers Rights Organization (“Plaintiffs”); and (2) Defendants County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (collectively the “County”), Sergeant Maurice Hill, Sergeant Salvador Becerra, Deputy Richard Gylfie, Deputy Roberto Bayes, Deputy D’Andre Lampkin, Deputy Lashon O’Bannon, Deputy Carlos L. Sanchez, Deputy Jason Cartagena, Deputy Michael A. Chacon, Deputy Marina Garcia, Deputy Ryck Burwell, Deputy Gustavo Carranza, Deputy Ernie King, Deputy Anthony Paez, and Deputy Jose Carbajal, Jr. (collectively “Defendants”).
Background Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively “the Parties”) enter into this Agreement with reference to the following facts:
A. On about October 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action in United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. CV 11-08899 DDP (JCGx)) (the “Action”). Plaintiffs twice amended the complaint, filing a Second Amended Complaint in this action on or about September 21, 2012.
B. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that in eleven separate incidents, deputies from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) either prevented them or others from taking photographs in a public place, without legal justification to do so, or searched or seized Plaintiffs or others without legal basis because they were taking photographs in a public place (the “Incidents”).

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 14 Page ID

#:2978

Settlement Agreement

Nee v. County of Los Angeles

No. CV 11-08899 DDP (JCGx))

Page 2

C. The Second Amended complaint asserts claims against the

Defendants under the federal and state law for unlawful search and seizure and for

violation of rights to free expression.

D. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to resolve fully and

formally all differences, and to discharge and dismiss all disputes between them,

including all claims that might have been or may be the subject of the Claim for

Damages or the Second Amended Complaint or may have arisen from the

Incidents, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein.

Agreement

In consideration of the promises set forth in this Agreement and to resolve the claims in

this Action, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Issuance of LASD Newsletter on Photography by Members of the Public. The

County of Los Angeles agrees that the LASD will issue a newsletter governing photography by

members of the public (the “Photography Newsletter”). The content of the Photography

Newsletter is set forth at Attachment A. The Photography Newsletter shall be issued no later

than 90 days from the Effective Date of this Agreement and shall be distributed to all employees

of the LASD within 7 days of being issued through LASD’s normal electronic distribution

process. Under existing LASD policies, the Photography Newsletter will remain valid until

revoked. While it is valid, the Photography Newsletter will be available to LASD employees on

the LASD’s intranet, and LASD deputies will be subject to testing on the content of the

Photography Newsletter for promotional exams.

2. Training on Newsletter. LASD agrees to implement the following training on the

contents of the Photography Newsletter:

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 4 of 14 Page ID

#:2979

Settlement Agreement

Nee v. County of Los Angeles

No. CV 11-08899 DDP (JCGx))

Page 3

a. Within 60 days of issuance of the Photography Newsletter, the LASD will

provide training on the Photography Newsletter during the watch briefings

offered at LASD’s patrol stations or units providing patrol services. These

trainings during watch briefings must be given to all stations and shifts, in a

manner reasonably calculated to provide training to all deputies who provide

patrol services.

b. Within 90 days of issuance of the Photography Newsletter, the LASD will

incorporate the content of the Photography Newsletter into the LASD’s

Academy Training & and the LASD’s Patrol School.

c. Upon issuance, the Photography Newsletter will be placed into LASD’s

recurrent briefing topics.

3. For three years from the Effective Date, LASD shall, prior to making any

modifications to the Photography Newsletter, meet and confer with the ACLU of Southern

California (the “ACLU”) regarding any proposed changes. Should the ACLU and the County be

unable to agree to the substance of changes, the ACLU and the County may go to the Court for

mediation of disagreement of any proposed modifications.

4. The parties agree that the pending dispute over the confidentiality of the Internal

Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) investigations of Sgt. Salvador Becerra and Deputy D’Andre Lampkin

shall end with the settlement of this case, and that the IAB report and all other personnel records

that are currently the subject of the Defendants’ July 19, 2013 Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt.

No. 121, , and any testimony discussing the contents of the IAB report or those personnel

records, shall remain confidential under the August 20, 2012 protective order, and be subject to

terms of that Protective Order governing treatment of confidential materials.

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 5 of 14 Page ID

#:2980

Settlement Agreement

Nee v. County of Los Angeles

No. CV 11-08899 DDP (JCGx))

Page 4

The parties further agree there are documents that were identified as Confidential and

subject to the Protective Orders executed in this matter that are the subject of current discussions

to release certain documents from the protections afforded by the Protective Orders. The parties

agree that any documents tentatively selected for confidential de-designation are being de-

designated pursuant to this settlement and will not be made available to the public until this

Settlement Agreement is approved by both the County of Los Angeles’ Claim Board and Board

of Supervisors.

5. Payment. In consideration of the Release and Discharge set forth below in

Paragraph 5 and subject to the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement, the County agrees

to pay Plaintiffs the amount of $50,000 in damages for physical injury and emotional distress and

$340,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, for a total Payment of $390,000. Plaintiffs agree that the

Payment is to be distributed as follows: One check in the amount of payable to: ACLU of

Southern California Client Trust Fund. The Parties agree that this Payment will compensate for

all alleged personal injuries, attorney’s fees, costs, and all other damages and claims.

6. Release and Discharge. In consideration of the actions that the County has agreed

to take and the payment called for in this Agreement, Plaintiffs waive all claims for declaratory

and injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorney’s fees against the Defendants, their agents,

employees, or employers that: 1) were or could have been pled in the Second Amended

Complaint in this Action; or 2) otherwise arise from the Incidents; or 3) arise out of Defendants

allegedly preventing Plaintiffs’ from taking photographs in a public place; or 4) arise out of

Defendants allegedly searching or seizing Plaintiffs without a legal basis because they were

taking photographs. This Release and Discharge, on the part of Plaintiffs, shall be a fully

binding and complete settlement between Plaintiffs and the Defendants, their assigns and

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 6 of 14 Page ID

#:2981

Settlement Agreement

Nee v. County of Los Angeles

No. CV 11-08899 DDP (JCGx))

Page 5

successors. Moreover, nothing contained herein is intended to prevent any Party from enforcing

the Agreement.

7. Settlement Contingent Upon the Approval of the Los Angeles County Claims

Board and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The Parties acknowledge that this

settlement is subject to the approval of the Los Angeles County Claims Board and the Los

Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The Parties agree that the payment specified in

Paragraph 4 above will be made no later than thirty (30) days from the date that the Los Angeles

County Board of Supervisors approves the settlement.

8. Denial of Liability. This Agreement is entered into in compromise of disputed

claims. The Defendants deny any violation of any federal, state, or local law related to their

involvement in the Incident. The Defendants expressly deny any liability to any of the Plaintiffs.

This Agreement constitutes the settlement of what the Defendants contend are disputed claims

and nothing contained herein is to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the

Defendants.

9. Order of Dismissal. Upon receipt by Plaintiffs’ counsel of the monies specified in

Paragraph 4 above, Plaintiffs authorize and direct Plaintiffs’ counsel to file a notice of dismissal

with prejudice of the claims against the Defendants in this Action.

10. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which

the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approves the settlement.

11. Waiver of Unknown Claims. Each of the Plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily

waives any and all rights and benefits otherwise conferred by the provisions of California Civil

Code section 1542, which provides as follows:

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 7 of 14 Page ID

#:2982

Settlement Agreement

Nee v. County of Los Angeles

No. CV 11-08899 DDP (JCGx))

Page 6

“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor

does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of

executing the release, which, if known to him or her, must have

materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”

Plaintiffs expressly acknowledge that this Settlement Agreement and Release is intended to

include in its effect, without limitation, all claims which Plaintiffs did not know or suspect to

exist at the time of the execution of this Agreement and Release arising out of or in connection

with his/her injuries and claims, as set forth above, and that this Settlement Agreement and

Release contemplates the extinguishment of any and all such claim(s).

12. Enforcement. The Parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any

differences regarding interpretations of and compliance with this Agreement prior to bringing

such matters to the Court for resolution. If, however, there is any disagreement arising out of or

relating to this Agreement that cannot be resolved between the Parties, the Parties agree that the

Court, or with the Court’s permission Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, shall retain jurisdiction

over the underlying settlement and this Agreement for a period of three years from the date the

Court enters an order approving the underlying settlement for the limited purpose of assisting the

Parties in resolving any differences relating to the interpretation of this Agreement.

13. Successors. The Agreement shall bind the successors, assigns, heirs and personal

representatives of each of the Parties.

14. Whole Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the

Parties and supersedes all prior agreements, written or oral, between Plaintiffs and the

Defendants. In the event any provision or term of this Agreement is determined to be or is

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 8 of 14 Page ID #:2983

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 9 of 14 Page ID #:2984

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 10 of 14 Page ID #:2985

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 11 of 14 Page ID #:2986

fll'i'ROVI:D AS `I'O FUI2M:

..~_.... ~ ~~G

Dated:

.~:

Settleme~rt Agreement Nee tip. CaLre7ty ~fLos ~l~agetes No. CV 1 I-088)9 DDI'(JCGx))
Page 8

.._--- ..

,_..., ...

_. ._.

.--...__..~...........:_.".

.~ _._

-

_......_...

Pet~c• Bibring ACLU oi'So~itl~eri~ Califacnia CoLn~se1,for Plcrir7taffi•

_....... ~•,, ..~. .~

Dated:l~/~ ~~ ~'Q,~

Los Angetes Comity Counsel G~~utz,red,fa•13efericictaa.ts

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 12 of 14 Page ID #:2987
Attachment A

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 13 of 14 Page ID #:2988
Members of the public, including the press, have a First Amendment right to observe, take photographs and record video in any public place where they are lawfully present.
Photography and the recording of video are common activities and are neither crimes nor indications of criminal activity, in themselves. Neither photography nor the recording of video, standing alone, can form the basis for a detention, arrest, or warrantless search.
Members of the public have the same right to take photographs and record video as members of the media (except for narrow circumstances authorizing media access to areas closed to the public pursuant to Penal Code § 409.5 due to the existence of a menace to public health or safety created by a calamity including a flood, storm, fire, earthquake, explosion, accident, or other disaster).
Members of the public have the right to take photographs and record video of peace officers engaged in the public discharge of their duties, including in such activities as detentions, searches and arrests, so long as the members of the public are in a place they have a legal right to be present. Officers should assume they are being recorded at all times when on duty.
The types of places an individual has a right to be present include public streets and 7/*+<'107# '3 /3*/;/*9'1>7 .42+ 46 (97/3+77# )42243 '6+'7 4, 59(1/) '3* 56/;'8+ facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual is lawfully present.
Interference with Taking Photographs or Recording Video
Department members are prohibited from interfering, threatening, intimidating, blocking or otherwise discouraging a member of the public, who is not violating any other law, from taking photographs or recording video (including photographs or video of police activities) in any place the member of the public is lawfully present. Such prohibited interference includes:
1. Ordering a person to cease taking photographs or recording video; 2. D+2'3*/3- 8.'8 5+6743>7 /*+38/,/)'8/43% 3. Demanding that the person state a reason why he or she is taking
photographs or recording video; 4. Detaining that person; 5. Intentionally blocking or obstructing cameras or recording devices (not
including physical barricades or screens used as a part of a tactical operation or crime scene).
Nothing in this policy bars officers from taking appropriate action if a person taking photographs or recording video is violating any provision of law; for example,

Case 2:11-cv-08899-DDP-JCG Document 177-1 Filed 04/20/15 Page 14 of 14 Page ID #:2989
1. Engaging in actions that jeopardize the safety of the person, the officer or others.
2. Violating the law. 3. Interfering with or obstructing police actions through direct physical
intervention.
Verbal criticism, insults, or name calling, or obscene gestures, directed at officers or others do not in themselves justify an officer taking corrective or enforcement action toward a member of the public, including one engaged in photography or video recording.
Nothing in this policy bars officers from initiating a consensual encounter with a person 8'0/3- 5.484-6'5.7 46 6+)46*/3- ;/*+4$ &4<+;+6# ' 5+6743>7 6+,97'1 84 '37<+6 questions or to speak with officers during a consensual encounter does not provide a basis for detention or search.
If a citi=+3>7 )43*9)8 6+1'8+* 84 8.+ 97+ 4, )'2+6'7 46 other recording devices rises to 8.+ 1+;+1 4, 3+)+77/8'8/3- '3 '66+78 ,46 /38+6,+6/3- 46 4(7869)8/3- ' 5+')+ 4,,/)+6>7 *98/+7 in violation of Penal Code sections 148, subdivision (a) or 69, deputies must adhere to Field Ops. Directive 12-01.
Department members are prohibited from deleting or destroying any photographic, audio or video recording under any circumstances. An officer may not require an individual to show the photographs that he or she has taken without a warrant. Procedures for involuntary and voluntary seizing of video and/or pictures are located in the Manual of Policy and Procedures, Section 5-04/110.12, Seizure of Photographic Evidence.

 
 Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 1 of 25
(JCGx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11−cv−08899−DDP−JCG

Shawn Nee et al v. County of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge Dean D. Pregerson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Shawn Nee

Date Filed: 10/27/2011 Date Terminated: 01/22/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Felix Lebron Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−229−1000 Fax: 310−229−1001 Email: felix.lebron@lacity.org TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geelan Fahimy Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−229−3826 Fax: 310−229−1001 Email: gafahimy@akingump.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica G Price ACLU of Southern California 1313 West 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−5233 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: Jessica.Price@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L Rachel Lerman Barnes & Thornburg LLP Century Twr Plz 2029 Century Park E, Ste 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067−3010 310−284−3880 Email: rachel.lerman@btlaw.com TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Bibring ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1313 West Eight Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−977−9500 Fax: 213−977−5297 Email: pbibring@aclu−sc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah E Gettings Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 2 of 25

310−312−4000 Fax: 310−312−4224 Email: sgettings@manatt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yaman Salahi Advancing Justice − Asian Law Caucus 55 Columbus Ave. San Francisco, CA 94610 415−848−7711 Fax: 415−896−1702 Email: yamans@advancingjustice−alc.org TERMINATED: 11/12/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Greggory Moore

represented by Felix Lebron (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geelan Fahimy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica G Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L Rachel Lerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Bibring (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah E Gettings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yaman Salahi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shane Quentin

represented by Denisse O Gastelum Casillas & Associates 3777 Long Beach Boulevard, 3rd Floor Long Beach, CA 90807 323−725−0917 Fax: 32−725−0350 Email: dgastelum@morenolawoffices.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Felix Lebron (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geelan Fahimy (See above for address)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 3 of 25

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica G Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L Rachel Lerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Bibring (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah E Gettings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yaman Salahi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
National Photographers Rights Organization The

represented by Felix Lebron (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Geelan Fahimy (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica G Price (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

L Rachel Lerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Bibring (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah E Gettings (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yaman Salahi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/12/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Los Angeles

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers Office of the County Counsel 500 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 4 of 25

213−893−7227 Fax: 213−626−5578 Email: cmathers@counsel.lacounty.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham Collins Collins Muir and Stewart LLP 1100 El Centro Street South Pasdena, CA 91030 626−243−1100 Fax: 626−243−1111 Email: ndavis@ccmslaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sergeant Maurice Hill in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Richard Gylfie in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Bayes in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 5 of 25

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Does 1 through 30 inclusive

represented by Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sergeant Salvador Becerra in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy D'Andre Lampkin in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Lashon O'Bannon in her individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Deputy Carlos L Sanchez

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 6 of 25

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Jason Cartagena in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Michael A Chacon in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Marina Garcia in her individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Ryck Burwell in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Gustavo Carranza in his individual capcity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 7 of 25

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Ernie King in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Deputy Anthony Paez

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Jose Carbajal, Jr in his individual capacity

represented by Catherine Mason Mathers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denisse O Gastelum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole Amber Davis Tinkham (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/27/2011
10/27/2011 10/27/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.Case assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Filing fee $ 350 Paid.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization. (et) (yl). (Entered: 10/28/2011)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (et) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
2 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (et) (yl). (Entered: 10/28/2011)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 8 of 25

10/27/2011 10/27/2011 11/08/2011
11/08/2011
11/09/2011 11/17/2011
11/18/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 01/19/2012 01/19/2012

3 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Related Case(s): Not Indicated. (et) (yl). (Entered: 10/28/2011)
4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
5 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, upon Defendant County of Los Angeles served on 10/28/2011, answer due 11/18/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Tammy Johnson, County Clerk in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, upon Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department served on 10/31/2011, answer due 11/21/2011. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Lashawn Tillman, Risk Management in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin, re Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) 5 , Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) 6 served on November 9, 2011. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
8 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Dean D Pregerson. Counsel are referred to the courts website for additional information. It is not necessary to clear motion date with court clerk prior to filing the motion. Court hears motions only on Mondays at 10:00 AM. The Court requires two non−blue backed courtesy copies of only the following manual and electronic filed documents: (1) All noticed motions and related documents; and (2) All ex parte applications and related documents (3) all exhibits and attachments must be separately tabbed. [Refer to the Court's General Order No. 10−07 regarding ECF Courtesy Paper Copies and re location of Chambers Email address. (lc) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
9 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to County of Los Angeles answer now due 11/28/2011; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department answer now due 11/28/2011, re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.(Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
10 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.(Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
11 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
12 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, upon Defendant Richard Gylfie served on 1/18/2012, answer due 2/8/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Orr, authorized to accept service on behalf of Deputy Richard Gylfie in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
13 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, upon Defendant Maurice Hill served on 1/18/2012, answer due 2/8/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Maurice Hill, in his individual capacity in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 01/19/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 9 of 25

01/26/2012 02/08/2012 02/09/2012
02/10/2012 02/14/2012 02/16/2012 02/17/2012
04/17/2012 04/18/2012
04/18/2012 05/10/2012

14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, upon Defendant Bayes served on 1/26/2012, answer due 2/16/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Francisco, authorized to accept service on behalf of Deputy Bayes in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
15 ANSWER filed by DEFENDANT Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill.(Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
16 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill Answer to Complaint 15 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
17 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
18 ORDER setting a scheduling conference on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. The parties are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than twenty−one (21) days prior to the scheduling conference and file a report with the Court entitled "Rule 26(f) Report", not later than fourteen (14) days after they confer as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. (cch) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
19 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 filed by DEFENDANT Bayes. (Attachments: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES)(Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
20 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: ONLY the attachment of the Notice of interested party ( to the Answer to Complaint (Discovery) 19 ). The following error(s) was found: Certificate of interested party should not have been an attachment, but should have been docketed under its own specific event: Notice: Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
21 RULE 26 JOINT REPORT OF COUNSEL REPORT of COUNSEL filed by Defendants Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. (Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
22 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Rule 26 Joint Report of Counsel 21 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Joint Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. Other error(s) with document(s): Please use the correct specific event to satisfy the filing requirement of the Rule 26 (f) report. The correct event will prompt the required information missing on the entry. (Please use the SEARCH option on the CM/ECF blue taskbar to assist in finding and using the correct event. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (jp) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
23 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan Joint Report of Counsel ; estimated length of trial 7, filed by Defendants Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.. (Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
24 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Held scheduling conference. Court and counsel confer re case status. Court sets trial dates. (Refer to the SCHEDULING ORDER to be issued hereafter.) (cch) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 10 of 25

05/21/2012 05/21/2012
06/15/2012 06/18/2012
06/18/2012
07/05/2012 07/05/2012 08/16/2012 08/16/2012 08/20/2012 09/10/2012 09/12/2012
09/21/2012

25 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 1 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Case ordered to Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi for Settlement Conference. (cch) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
26 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. The Court sets the following dates: LAST DAY TO JOIN OTHER PARTIES AND TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS: 09−10−12; FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF: 02−11−13; EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF: 04−12−13; LAST DAY TO FILE MOTIONS: 05−13−13; FINAL PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE 08−12−13 at 11:00 a.m.; 5 DAY JURY TRIAL 08−20−13 at 9:00 a.m. See order for details. (cch) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
27 Joint STIPULATION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint filed by plaintiff Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
28 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 27 allows Plaintiffs to filetheir First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Court ORDERS the First Amended Complaint filed within 15 days from the date of this order in accordance with the Clerks Office filing procedures. (lc) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Does 1−30, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department amending Complaint − (Discovery) 1 ,filed by plaintiff Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization (lc) (lc). (Entered: 06/20/2012)
30 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, 29 filed by DEFENDANTS Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Does, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.(Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
31 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by DEFENDANTS Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, (Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
32 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
33 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. correcting Stipulation for Protective Order 32 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
34 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi re Stipulation for Protective Order 32 . ( See Order for details) (bem) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
35 STIPULATION to Amend Amended Complaint, 29 filed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
36 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 35 that because the parties have been unable to ascertain the identities of three defendants named as Does, despite their efforts, the Court extends their deadline for amending their complaint to add those remaining three defendants by 60 days, to November 9, 2012. (lc) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
37 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Does, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Salvador Becerra, D'Andre Lampkin, Lashon O'Bannon, Carlos L Sanchez, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, Marina Garcia, Ryck Burwell, Gustavo Carranza, Ernie King, Anthony Paez, Jose Carbajal, Jr. Does 1−30 amending Amended Complaint 29 filed by plaintiffs Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization (lc) (lc). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/30/2012: # 1 issued summons) (lc). (Entered: 09/21/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 11 of 25

10/05/2012 11/29/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012 12/10/2012

38 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 37 filed by DEFENDANTS Bayes, County of Los Angeles, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.(Davis−Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Second Amended Complaint,, 37 as to defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Does, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (lc) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
39 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Lashon O'Bannon served on 12/6/2012, answer due 12/27/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Kennedy, person in charge in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
40 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Gustavo Carranza served on 12/5/2012, answer due 12/26/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Gustavo Carranza in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
41 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Ryck Burwell served on 12/5/2012, answer due 12/26/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Ryck Burwell in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
42 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Ernie King served on 12/5/2012, answer due 12/26/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Ernie King in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
43 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Jason Cartagena served on 12/7/2012, answer due 12/28/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Johnson, person in charge in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
44 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Marina Garcia served on 12/7/2012, answer due 12/28/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Johnson, person in charge in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
45 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Michael A Chacon served on 12/7/2012, answer due 12/28/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Johnson, person in charge, in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
46 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Carlos L Sanchez served on 12/7/2012, answer due 12/28/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Johnson, person in charge, in compliance

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 12 of 25

12/11/2012
12/11/2012
12/11/2012 12/12/2012 12/19/2012
12/26/2012 12/27/2012
12/27/2012 12/27/2012 12/28/2012 12/28/2012

with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
47 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Salvador Becerra served on 12/7/2012, answer due 12/28/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Burse, person in charge, in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
48 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant D'Andre Lampkin served on 12/7/2012, answer due 12/28/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sergeant Burse, person in charge, in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
49 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Jose Carbajal, Jr served on 12/3/2012, answer due 12/24/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Nicole Davis Tinkham, attorney for Jose Carbajal, Jr., in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified. Original Summons NOT returned. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
50 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 4/12/2013 filed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
51 ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATES 50 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Having reviewed the parties' stipulation, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), to modify the Scheduling Order in order to extend the fact discovery period by 60 days, the Court finds that there is good cause and enters a modified scheduling order extending that date and subsequent dates as follows: FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF 4−12−13; EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF 6−11−13; LAST DAY TO FILE MOTIONS 7−12−13; FINAL PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE 10−07−13 at 11:00 a.m.; 5 DAY JURY TRIAL 10−22−13 at 9:00 a.m. (jre) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
52 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 37 filed by Defendants Ryck Burwell, Gustavo Carranza, Ernie King.(Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
53 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE:Burwell, Carranza, Ernie defendants Answer to Complaint 52 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
54 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 37 filed by Defendants Salvador Becerra, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, Marina Garcia, Lashon O'Bannon, Carlos L Sanchez.(Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
55 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, Marina Garcia, Ernie King, Lashon O'Bannon, Carlos L Sanchez, (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
56 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 37 filed by defendant D'Andre Lampkin.(Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
57 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by defendant D'Andre Lampkin, (Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 13 of 25

01/10/2013 01/17/2013 01/24/2013 01/25/2013 01/29/2013 03/05/2013
03/07/2013 03/07/2013 03/07/2013
03/07/2013

58 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shane Quentin, Shawn Nee, National Photographers Rights Organization, Greggory Moore, upon Defendant Anthony Paez served on 1/3/2013, answer due 1/24/2013. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Catie Mathers, attorney for Anthony Paez in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified. Original Summons NOT returned. (Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
59 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Geelan Fahimy counsel for Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Adding Geelan Fahimy as attorney as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Attorney (Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
60 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,, 37 filed by Defendant Anthony Paez.(Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
61 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Anthony Paez, (Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
62 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Peter Bibring counsel for Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Adding Yaman Salahi as attorney as counsel of record for Shawn Nee; Greggory Moore; Shane Quentin; The National Photographers' Rights Organization for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Nee; Moore; Quentin; The Photographers' Rights Organization (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
63 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Fact and Expert Discovery Cutoff and Last Day to File Motions from Fact Discovery 4/12/13; Expert Discovery 6/11/13; Motion Filing 7/12/13 to Fact Discovery 6/12/13; Expert Discovery 8/1/13; Motion Filing 8/9/13 Re: Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,, 51 filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
64 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization of (1) Plaintiff's Application to Seal; (2) [Proposed] Order re Application to Seal; (3) Unredacted Joint Stipulation re Plaintiff NPRO's Motion to Compel; (4) Exhibits N−T to Declaration of Sarah Gettings re Plaintiff NPRO's Motion to Compel. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
65 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 63 the fact discovery cut−off is hereby continued from April 12, 2013 to June 12, 2013; the expert discovery cut−off is hereby continued from June 11, 2013 to August 1, 2013; and the last day to file motions is hereby continued from July 12, 2013 to August 9, 2013. No other dates currently set in the scheduling order are continued. (lc) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
66 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel (1) Further Responses to Document Requests and Interrogatories; (2) Motion to Compel FRCP 30(b)(6) Deponent on Document Search Efforts; and (3) Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization. Motion set for hearing on 4/2/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Attachments: # 1 REDACTED Joint Stipulation Re Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization's Motion to Compel, # 2 Declaration of Sarah Gettings in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibits N − T Filed Under Seal, # 17 Exhibit U, # 18 Exhibit V, # 19 Exhibit W, # 20 Exhibit X, # 21 Exhibit Y, # 22 Exhibit Z, # 23 Exhibit AA, # 24 Exhibit BB, # 25 Exhibit CC, # 26 Exhibit DD, # 27 Exhibit EE, # 28 Exhibit FF, # 29 Exhibit GG, # 30 Exhibit HH, # 31 Exhibit II, # 32 Declaration of Nicole Davis Tinkham in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, # 33 Exhibits A − X, # 34 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel)(Gettings, Sarah) (Attachment 6 replaced on 3/21/2013) (lmh). (Entered: 03/07/2013)
68 APPLICATION to Seal documents in connection with Plaintiff's 1. Motion to Compel further responses to document requests and interrogatories; 2. Motion to Compel

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 14 of 25

03/08/2013 03/19/2013 03/19/2013 03/19/2013 03/19/2013
03/19/2013 03/19/2013 03/20/2013
03/25/2013

FRCP 30(b)(60 Deponent on document search efforts; and 3. Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Lodged Proposed Order) (lmh) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
67 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization, of Plaintiff's Application to Seal Documents re Motion to Compel, [Proposed] Order; Unredacted Joint Stipulation and Exhibits N−T to Decl. of Sarah Gettings in support of Motion to Compel served on March 7, 2013. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
69 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel (1) Further Responses to Document Requests and Interrogatories; (2) Motion to Compel FRCP 30(b)(6) Deponent on Document Search Efforts; and (3) Request for Sanctions 66 filed by Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Bibring, # 2 Exhibits A−AA to Declaration of Peter Bibring, # 3 Supplemental Declaration of Sarah Gettings, # 4 Exhibits A−D to Declaration of Sarah Gettings, # 5 Declaration of Geelan Fahimy)(Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
70 APPLICATION for Order for to Seal Exhibit D to the Declaration of Sarah Gettings in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Application to Seal Exhibit D to the Declaration of Sarah Gettings)(Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
71 SUPPLEMENT Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Decl. Gastelum in support of Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel, # 2 Declaration Decl. Naimi in support of Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel)(Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
74 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH PLAINTIFF'S (1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND INTERROGATORIES; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL FRCP 30(b)(6) DEPONENT ON DOCUMENT SEARCH EFFORTS; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.1 and the parties' Stipulated Protective Order, the following documents shall be filed under seal. (See Order for details)granting 68 Application to Seal (bem) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
81 SEALED DOCUMENT−UNREDACTED JOINT STIPULATION Re Plaintiff the National Photographers Rights Organization's 1) Motion to Compel Further Responses; 2) Motion to Compel FRCP 30(b)(6) Deponent on Document Search Efforts; and 3) Request for Sanctions (mg) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
82 SEALED DOCUMENT−EXHIBITS N−T to Declaration of Sarah Gettings in Support of Plaintiff The National Photographers Rights Organization's 1) MOTION to Compel Further Responses; 2) Motion to Compel FRCP 30(b)(6) Deponent on Document Search Efforts and 3) Request for Sanctions. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(mg) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
72 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO SEAL EXHIBIT D TO THE DECLARATION OF SARAH GETTINGS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS (1) MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND INTERROGATORIES; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL FRCP 30(b)(6) DEPONENT ON DOCUMENT SEARCH EFFORTS; AND (3) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, After considering Plaintiffs Application to Seal Exhibit D to the Declaration of Sarah Gettings in support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions ("Application"): IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.1 and the parties Stipulated Protective Order, Exhibit D to the Declaration of Sarah Gettings filed at ECF No. 66−6 shall be removed from public view, shall no longer be viewable on PACER, and shall be filed under seal. 70 Application for Order (lmh) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
73 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The Court has reviewed plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization's ("NPRO") motion to compel

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 15 of 25

03/27/2013 03/28/2013 04/01/2013 04/01/2013 04/02/2013
04/02/2013
04/02/2013

further responses to document requests and interrogatories, motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent on document search efforts, and request for sanctions, along with the parties' supplemental memoranda now. [See Dkt. Nos. 66, 68, 69, 71.] On its own motion, the Court now DIRECTS the parties to further meet and confer, fully and diligently and in person, on the relief sought by this motion, including whether mutually−acceptable, reasonable compromises cannot be achieved here, such as, without prejudging any matter. (See Order for details) 66 , 69 71 , (bem) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
75 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order for Preventing Public Disclosure of Internal Affairs Investigation and Personnel Files filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 4/30/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order)(Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
76 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez of DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; DECLARATION OF DENISSE GASTELUM; (PROPOSED) ORDER. (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
77 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Compel,,,,, 66 filed by Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
78 Joint STIPULATION for Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
79 JOINT STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, Plaintiff National Photographers Rights Organization ("Plaintiff") and defendant County of Los Angeles ("Defendant"), by and through their counsel of record, held an in−person conference at the offices of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Los Angeles, California 90067 on March 28, 2013 pursuant to the Courts March 25, 2013 Order (ECF No. 73) requiring an in−person conference in connection with Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (ECF No. 66), and reached certain mutually−acceptable compromises regarding discovery. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their counsel of record, as described herein. re Stipulation for Order 78 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
80 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The Court has reviewed Defendants' motion for a protective order preventing public disclosure of (1) internal affairs investigation report and testimony thereon; and (2) LASD deputy personnel files. [Dkt. No. 75.] The Court has also carefully reviewed Exhibits E, F, and G to the Declaration of Denise O. Gastelum, specifically the copies of reports generated by the Internal Affairs Bureau, the LASD deputy personnel records, and the testimony of Patrick Jordan. On its own motion, the Court now DIRECTS the parties to further meet and confer, fully and diligently and in person, on the relief sought by this motion, including whether mutually− acceptable, reasonable compromises cannot be achieved here, such as, without prejudging any matter. If the parties are able to resolve their discovery dispute, as the Court now anticipates, Plaintiff shall so advise the Courtroom Deputy Clerk on or before April 23, 2013 and file a notice of withdrawal of the motion to compel. It is so ordered. (See Order for details) 75 . (bem) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
83 APPLICATION to Seal Documents in Connection with Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Preventing Public Disclosure of (1) INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION REPORT AND TESTIMONY THEREON (2) LASD DEPUTY PERSONNEL FILES filed by Defendant Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 16 of 25

04/02/2013
04/02/2013 04/17/2013
04/18/2013
05/07/2013 05/07/2013 05/07/2013 05/07/2013 05/07/2013

Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (bem) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
84 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PREVENTING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF (1) INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION REPORT AND TESTIMONY THEREON (2) LASD DEPUTY PERSONNEL FILES by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.1 and the parties' Stipulated Protective Order, the following documents shall be filed under seal: Exhibits E, F, and G to the Declaration of Denisse O. Gastlum in Support of Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Preventing Public Disclosure of (1) Internal Affairs Investigation Report and Testimony Thereon; (2) LASD Deputy Personnel Files granting 83 . (bem) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
85 SEALED DOCUMENT− DECLARATION of Denisse O. Gatelum in Support of Joints Stipulation Re: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Exhibits E, F, and G. (Attachments: Part 2, Part 3)(mat) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
86 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION for Protective Order for Preventing Public Disclosure of Internal Affairs Investigation and Personnel Files 75 (pursuant to Courts April 2, 2013 Order) filed by Defendants Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
87 JOINT STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their counsel of record, that there is good cause to continue the hearing set for Defendants Motion for a Protective Order Preventing Public Disclosure of (1) Internal Affairs Investigation Report and Testimony Thereon and (2) LASD Deputy Personnel Files currently scheduled for April 30, 2013 to May 21, 2013. re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion 86 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh) Modified on 4/19/2013 (lmh). (Entered: 04/18/2013)
88 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin of Application for Under Seal Filing, Proposed Order, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
89 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin of Notice of Lodging of Exhibit A (Compact Disc). (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
90 DECLARATION of Yaman Salahi in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order for Preventing Public Disclosure of Internal Affairs Investigation and Personnel Files 75 filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
91 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Exhibit A (CD−Rom) re Declaration (Motion related), 90 (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
92 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Supplemental MOTION for Protective Order for Preventing Public Disclosure of Internal Affairs Investigation Report and Testimony Thereon and LASD Deputy Personnel Files filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Does, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 5/21/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Gastelum in Support of Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Protective Order)(Davis Tinkham, Nicole)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 17 of 25

05/07/2013
05/07/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/08/2013
05/08/2013
05/08/2013 05/08/2013 05/09/2013
05/09/2013

(Entered: 05/07/2013)
93 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Supplemental MOTION for Protective Order for Notice of Manual Filing of Defendants' Application to Seal Documents in Connection with Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Protective Order; Declaration of Gastelum in Support of Joint Stipulation Re: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order; Exhibits A, B and C; [Proposed] Order filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Does, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 5/21/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 05/07/2013)
94 APPLICATION to File Under Seal a Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Lodged Proposed Order) (lmh) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
95 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Amended Lodging of Exhibit A re Declaration (Motion related), 90 , Notice of Lodging 91 (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
96 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin of Exhibit A: CD−Rom to Declaration of Yaman Salahi, Dkt. 90. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
97 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. correcting Supplemental MOTION for Protective Order for Notice of Manual Filing of Defendants' Application to Seal Documents in Connection with Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Protective Order; Declaration o 93 (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
98 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. correcting Supplemental MOTION for Protective Order for Preventing Public Disclosure of Internal Affairs Investigation Report and Testimony Thereon and LASD Deputy Personnel Files 92 (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 05/08/2013)
102 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, Good cause having been shown in Plaintiffs' Application to File Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, Under Seal, the Application is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.1 and the parties' Stipulated Protective Order, Plaintiff' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order shall be filed under seal. 94 Application to Seal (lmh) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
106 SEALED DOCUMENT− PLAINTIFFS' Supplemental Briefing in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order. (mat) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
99 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The Court has reviewed the parties' supplemental memoranda regarding Defendants' motion for a protective order. The Court's proposed compromises, as reflected in its Minute Order of April 2, 2013, [Dkt. No. 80], are now adopted as its final order, with one exception. In short, Defendants' motion for a protective order is DENIED, except Defendants may surgically redact highly sensitive and private information (e.g., addresses, telephone numbers, etc.). The hearing scheduled for May 21, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. (See Order for details) 80 . (bem) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
100 APPLICATION to File Under Seal Exhibits A, B, C to the Declaration of Denisse O. Gastelum in Support of Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 18 of 25

05/09/2013 05/09/2013 05/10/2013 05/10/2013 05/21/2013 05/23/2013
06/03/2013 06/11/2013 06/17/2013

Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Preventing Public Disclosure of 1.Internal Affairs Investigation Report and Testimony thereon; 2. LASD Deputy Personal Files filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (lmh) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
101 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 79−5.1 and the parties' Stipulated Protective Order, the following documents shall be filed under seal: Exhibits A, B, C to the Declaration of Denisse O. Gastelum in Support of Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Preventing Public Disclosure of 1.Internal Affairs Investigation Report and Testimony thereon; 2. LASD Deputy Personal Files. 100 Application to Seal (lmh) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
105 SEALED DOCUMENT− DECLARATION of Denise O. Gastelum in Support of Joint Stipulation Re: Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Exhibits A, B, and C. (mat) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
103 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Protective Order for Preventing Public Disclosure of Internal Affairs Investigation and Personnel Files 75 filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
104 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez of Notice of Manual Filing. (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
107 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Further Response to Interrogatory, to Take Deposition, FRCP 30(B)(6) Deponent on LASD Training filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Motion set for hearing on 6/11/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Joint Stipulation, # 3 Salahi Dec ISO Motion, # 4 Exhibits to Salahi Dec, # 5 Gastelum Dec in Opp to Motion, # 6 Exhibits to Gastelum Dec)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
108 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRATING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' (1) motion to compel further response to interrogatory seeking contact information for Captain Steven Roller; (2) motion for leave to take deposition of Captain Roller; and (3) motion to compel FRCP 30(b)(6) deponent on LASD training. [Dkt. No. 107.]. With respect to Captain Roller, Plaintiffs' two motions are GRANTED. With respect to the 30(b)(6) deposition, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED at this juncture. The hearing scheduled for June 11, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. It is so ordered. (See Order for details)granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion to Compel (bem) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
109 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
110 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT−OFF ANDMODIFYING SCHEDULE 109 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:The cutoff for filing dispositive motions continued to October 11, 2013 The final pre−trial continued to January 27, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Trial shall be continued to February 11, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (see document for specific modified discovery dates). (lc) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
111 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Protective Order TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REPORT

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 19 of 25

06/17/2013 06/17/2013
06/18/2013 06/18/2013 06/28/2013 07/01/2013
07/02/2013

REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE MAY 1, 2011 NEE INCIDENT filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 7/16/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
112 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez of Application to File Under Seal, Dec of Gastelum and [Proposed] Order. (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
113 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION for Protective Order TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REPORT REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE MAY 1, 2011 NEE INCIDENT 111 filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
114 NOTICE filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Shane Quentin, Carlos L Sanchez. (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
115 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of (Proposed) Order re MOTION for Protective Order TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REPORT REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE MAY 1, 2011 NEE INCIDENT 111 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
116 STIPULATION for Protective Order as to Certain Personally Identifiable Information filed by Joint Regional Intelligence Center. (Lodged Proposed Order)(lmh) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
117 PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO CERTAIN PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, Upon the stipulation of plaintiffs, defendants, and the Joint Regional Intelligence Center and good cause having been shown, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. As used in this order, Personally Identifiable Information (PII) shall mean any item of information about an individual; JRIC shall mean the Joint Regional Intelligence Center; Counsel shall mean any of the attorneys in this action for plaintiffs or defendants; and Subpoena shall mean plaintiffs subpoena to JRIC dated October 31, 2012, as clarified by the agreement between plaintiffs and JRIC entered into on or about March 13, 2013. re Stipulation for Protective Order 116 (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
118 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Supplement defendants' motion for protective order to maintain the confidentiality of the internal affairs bureau report re the investigation of the May 1, 2011 Nee incident re MOTION for Protective Order TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REPORT REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE MAY 1, 2011 NEE INCIDENT 111 filed by defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Shane Quentin, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 7/16/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 20 of 25

07/02/2013
07/03/2013 07/19/2013
07/26/2013 07/29/2013 08/01/2013 08/01/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/05/2013 08/06/2013
08/06/2013

119 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Protective Order TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU REPORT REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE MAY 1, 2011 NEE INCIDENT 111 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
120 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, Pending before the Court is Defendants motion for a protective order. [Dkt. No. 111−115, 118−119.] Defendants motion is DENIED1 and the hearing scheduled for July 16, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. 111 Motion for Protective Order (SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (lmh) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
121 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration filed by defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 8/26/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
122 Joint STIPULATION for Discovery filed by Plaintiff Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
123 JOINT STIPULATED DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, re Stipulation for Discovery 122 . (See Order for details) (bem) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
124 STIPULATION for Discovery as to Joint Regional Intelligence Center filed by Misc. Joint Regional Intelligence Center. (Attachments: # 1 Prop. Order)(Glass, David) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
125 ORDER CONCERNING DISCOVERY DEADLINES by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi, re Stipulation for Discovery 124 . (See Order for details) (bem) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
126 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin of Application to Seal, Proposed Order, Plaintiffs' Unredacted Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. (Salahi, Yaman) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
127 Plaintiffs' Redacted Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Opposition re: MOTION for Reconsideration 121 filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Yaman Salahi)(Salahi, Yaman) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
136 APPLICATION TO FILE PLAINTIFFS UNREDACTED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION UNDER SEAL filed by plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Lodged order. (lc) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
128 NOTICE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF SHAWN NEES DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES filed by defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Does, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
129 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF NEE'S DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 8/27/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 21 of 25

08/06/2013 08/07/2013
08/07/2013 08/07/2013
08/07/2013
08/07/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013 08/12/2013

Order)(Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
130 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez of a disk. (Mathers, Catherine) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
131 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. correcting MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF NEE'S DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES 129 , Notice (Other), 128 (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
132 DECLARATION of Geelan Fahimy in opposition to MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF NEE'S DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES 129 filed by Plaintiff Shawn Nee. (Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
133 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF SHAWN NEES DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. Motion set for hearing on 8/27/2013 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
134 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF SHAWN NEES DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES 133 filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
135 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Exhibit H (a disk) to DECLARATION OF DENISSE O. GASTLUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATION RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF SHAWN NEES DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion,, 134 (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
137 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO FILE PLAINTIFFS UNREDACTED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER SEAL 136 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
140 SEALED DOCUMENT−PLAINTIFFS UNREDACTED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION(lc) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
138 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Miscellaneous Joint Regional Intelligence Center. (Attachments: # 1 Prop. Order)(Glass, David) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
139 PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO CERTAIN PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi re Stipulation for Protective Order 138 . (See Order for details) (bem) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
141 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER MOTION for Reconsideration 121 filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 08/12/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 22 of 25

08/13/2013
08/13/2013 08/21/2013
08/27/2013
08/28/2013 08/28/2013
08/29/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013

142 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF NEE'S DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES 129 filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
143 Supplemental Opposition re MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF NEE'S DIGITAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING AND STORAGE DEVICES 129 filed by Plaintiff Shawn Nee. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Decl of Sarah Gettings)(Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
144 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: re: MOTION for Reconsideration 121 . COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY DEFENDANTS BAYES, SALVADOR BECERRA, RYCK BURWELL, JOSE CARBAJAL, JR, GUSTAVO CARRANZA, JASON CARTAGENA, MICHAEL A CHACON, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, MARINA GARCIA, RICHARD GYLFIE, MAURICE HILL, ERNIE KING, D'ANDRE LAMPKIN, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, LASHON O'BANNON, ANTHONY PAEZ, CARLOS L SANCHEZ (DOCKET NUMBER 121) set for August 26, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., is hereby taken off calendar, the hearing date vacated and will be decided without oral argument. (cch) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
145 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: Case called. Appearances announced. The Court provides its tentative ruling. Parties argue. The Court's final and specific rulings are articulated on the record, and the record shall constitute the Order of this Court. Parties discuss a settlement conference with the Court. The Court shall conduct a settlement conference on October 10, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., and high−level personnel from the County of Los Angeles shall be present, as well as Plaintiff. A separate Order shall issue regarding the settlement conference. It is so ordered. (See Orde for details) 129 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 133 Court Recorder: CS 8/27/13. (bem) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
146 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Jessica G Price on behalf of Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin (Price, Jessica) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
148 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: IT IS ORDERED as follows: The parties and their lead trial counsel shall appear for a settlement conference on October 10, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 827−A of the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012. The parties and their lead trial counsel shall keep their schedule clear for the remaining part of the day. No party or counsel shall be excused absent leave from the Judge or until the settlement conference is adjourned. (See Order for further important details) 145 (bem) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
147 COMPACT DISC Order for date of proceedings 08/27/2013 to 08/27/2013 filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Court will contact Geelan Fahimy at gafahimy@akingump.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: 08/27/2013. FEE PAID. (Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
149 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiff Shawn Nee of CD/Disk. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
150 NOTICE OF LODGING filed of Exhibit G (Multimedia CD) to Declaration of Geelan Fahimy re Notice of Manual Filing (G−92) 149 (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
151 Amended NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin of CD/Disk − Exhibit G to Declaration of Geelan Fahimy. (Gettings, Sarah) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 23 of 25

09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/30/2013 10/01/2013 10/03/2013
10/07/2013 10/10/2013
10/11/2013

152 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Ruling Ordering Plaintiff to Turn Over 16 Personal Hard Drives for 3rd Party Forensic Examination filed by Plaintiff Shawn Nee's Shawn Nee. Motion set for hearing on 10/21/2013 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
153 DECLARATION of Shawn Nee in support of MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Ruling Ordering Plaintiff to Turn Over 16 Personal Hard Drives for 3rd Party Forensic Examination 152 filed by Plaintiff Shawn Nee. (Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
154 DECLARATION of Geelan Fahimy In Support Of MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Ruling Ordering Plaintiff to Turn Over 16 Personal Hard Drives for 3rd Party Forensic Examination 152 filed by Plaintiff Shawn Nee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
155 in opposition re: MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Ruling Ordering Plaintiff to Turn Over 16 Personal Hard Drives for 3rd Party Forensic Examination 152 filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Gastelum, Denisse) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
156 Joint STIPULATION for Order TO FILE COMBINED MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ENLARGE PAGE LIMITS, AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
157 ORDER MODIFYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING TIME EXTENSION 156 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiffs and Defendants will each file a single motion for summary judgment combining arguments on behalf of all parties on their side. The memoranda in support of motions for summary judgment shall beno more than 75 pages; memoranda in opposition to summary judgment shall be nomore than 75 pages; memoranda in reply supporting motions for summaryjudgment shall be no more than 50 pages. The parties will file any motions for summary judgment by the present deadline of October 11, 2013; any oppositions to motions for summary judgment shall be filed by November 8, 2013; any replies in support of motions for summary judgment shall be filed by November 22, 2013. (lc) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
158 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Ruling Ordering Plaintiff to Turn Over 16 Personal Hard Drives for 3rd Party Forensic Examination 152 filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Bibring, # 2 Exhibits A−E)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
160 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The above−captioned matter came on for a Settlement Conference. The parties and their lead counsel were present. The Court privately caucused with the parties and their counsel. The matter was resolved, subject to approval by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles County. The parties are reminded that all discussions were, and are, deemed to be confidential settlement communications. Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Settlement at the earliest opportunity. It is so ordered. Court Recorder: CS 10/10/13. (bem) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
159 STIPULATION to Stay Case pending PROPOSAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 24 of 25

10/11/2013
10/25/2013 11/12/2013 11/27/2013 12/30/2013 01/22/2014 01/22/2014 11/05/2014 11/12/2014 11/14/2014

161 ORDER RE: STAY OF CASE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation to Stay Case, 159 . This case is stayed for all purposes; The stay will be lifted if Defendants do not accept the mediator's proposal by October 24, 2013 or if the parties are unable to finalize the terms of a settlement agreement. The parties will file a status report with the Court on or before October 25, 2013; If the stay is lifted, the parties will have 10 court days from the date the stay is lifted to file their Motions for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RULING ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO TURN OVER 16 PERSONAL HARD DRIVES FOR 3RD PARTY FORRENSIC EXAMINATION FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHAWN NEE'S SHANW NEE (DOCKET NUMBER 152) is continued from October 21, 2013 to December 2, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (bp) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
162 JOINT REPORT RE: STAY OF CASE REPORT of STAY OF CASE filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
163 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Peter Bibring counsel for Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Yaman Salahi is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Peter Bibring. (Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
164 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that on the Court's own motion the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE'S RULING ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO TURN OVER 16 PERSONAL HARD DRIVES FOR 3RD PARTY FORENSICEXAMINATION FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHAWN NEE'S SHAWN NEE 152 is hereby continued from December 2, 2013 to February 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
165 JOINT REPORT RE STAY OF CASE REPORT filed by Defendants Bayes, Salvador Becerra, Ryck Burwell, Jose Carbajal, Jr, Gustavo Carranza, Jason Cartagena, Michael A Chacon, County of Los Angeles, Marina Garcia, Richard Gylfie, Maurice Hill, Ernie King, D'Andre Lampkin, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Lashon O'Bannon, Anthony Paez, Carlos L Sanchez. (Davis Tinkham, Nicole) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
166 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED the following motions are hereby VACATED: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 121 ;MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 152 . (lc) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
167 ORDER REMOVING CASE FROM ACTIVE CASELOAD by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: This action is removed from the Courts active caseload until further application by the parties or Order of this Court. All pending calendar dates are vacated by the Court. This Court retains jurisdiction over this action and this Order shall not prejudice any party to this action. (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) (lc) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
168 REQUEST for Order for Setting Status Conference Re Approval of Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
169 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Geelan Fahimy counsel for Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. Felix Lebron is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Shawn Nee, Greggory Moore, Shane Quentin, and. (Fahimy, Geelan) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
170 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney L Rachel Lerman counsel for Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. L. Rachel Lerman is no longer attorney of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed

Case: 2:11-cv-8899 As of: 04/05/2018 02:32 PM PDT 25 of 25

11/17/2014 12/22/2014
12/23/2014 02/02/2015 03/16/2015 04/20/2015 04/20/2015 04/21/2015

by Plaintiff Plaintiff. (Lerman, L) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
171 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT. Counsel are ordered to appear at a status conference on January 12, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., to discuss the status of settlement approval by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
172 STIPULATION to Continue Status Conference from 1/12/15 to 1/26/15 filed by plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
173 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation 172 the status conference regarding the settlement agreement in this case, is continued toFebruary 2, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
174 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court and counsel confer as reflected on the record. The matter is continued to March 16, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lom) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
175 MINUTES OF Status Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer as reflected on the record. The Status Conference is continued to Monday, April 20, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
176 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (COURT ORDERED 11−17−14) Status Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer as reflected on the record. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (shb) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
177 REQUEST to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiffs Greggory Moore, National Photographers Rights Organization, Shawn Nee, Shane Quentin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bibring, Peter) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
178 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 177 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 04/21/2015)