Perez v. City of Fresno

2 Citing cases

  1. Liles v. Cnty. of Sacramento

    2:24-cv-00416-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. May. 2, 2024)   Cited 4 times

    Moreover, here, there is no evidence the prejudicial information has already been accessed by the public. Cf. e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184 (information already publicly available via press release); Perez v. City of Fresno, 482 F.Supp.3d 1037, 1044 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (information already made public via news articles); Flores v. U.S. Immigr. & CustomsEnf''t, No. 18-05139, 2018 WL 5825314, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018) (plaintiff provided evidence public had already accessed documents)

  2. Robinson v. City of Huntsville

    5:21-cv-00704-AKK (N.D. Ala. Nov. 1, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    In Robinson v. City of Huntsville, United States District Judge Abdul K. Kallon succinctly discussed the importance of public access to body cam footage in a civil case alleging excessive force by police officers resulting in the death of a member of the public, "even where there is no constitutional violation:"

    See also Perez v. City of Fresno, 482 F.Supp.3d 1037, 1048-49 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (citing In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011)) (denying request to blur non-party ambulance employees' faces in wrongful death lawsuit where (1) disclosure of bodycam footage was proper under a common law analysis and (2) the non-party employees were acting in a public capacity alongside the defendant police officers); Sampson v. City of El Centro, 2015 WL 11658713, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (permitting release of bodycam footage, despite privacy interests weighing against disclosure, where non-parties' identities were redacted from the relevant videos and photographs). C.