ALBERT MARCELLUS TAYLOR v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CLARK COUNTY, MEDIC WEST, INC.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedOctober 27, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00840
StatusUnknown

This text of ALBERT MARCELLUS TAYLOR v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CLARK COUNTY, MEDIC WEST, INC. (ALBERT MARCELLUS TAYLOR v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CLARK COUNTY, MEDIC WEST, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ALBERT MARCELLUS TAYLOR v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CLARK COUNTY, MEDIC WEST, INC., (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 ROBERT W. FREEMAN Nevada Bar No. 3062 2 Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com E. MATTHEW FREEMAN 3 Nevada Bar No. 14198 Matt.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com 4 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Telephone: 702.893.3383 6 Facsimile: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendant Las Vegas 7 Metropolitan Police Department 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 ALBERT MARCELLUS TAYLOR, Case No. 2:25-cv-00840-APG-BNW 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 13 vs. 14 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a municipal law enforcement 15 agency operating in Clark County, Nevada; CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision 16 responsible for the oversight and operation of public health services; MEDIC WEST, INC., a 17 private emergency medical service provider acting under color of law during the incidents 18 described; UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER (“UMC”), a public hospital 19 operating under Clark County, acting under color of law by administering medical 20 treatment without informed consent; JOHN DOE (ARRESTING OFFICER) LVMPD; the 21 officer responsible for Plaintiff’s initial detention; JOHN DOE 1 & JOHN DOE 2 22 (FAILURE TO INTERVENE OFFICERS) LVMPD, officers who failed to intervene 23 when Plaintiff was suffering from extreme heat exhaustion; JOHN DOE (MEDIC WEST 24 PERSONNEL), emergency responder who administered sedation unjustifiably, 25 Defendants. 26 27 1 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 2 The parties to this action, by their respective counsel, having agreed to the following, and 3 for good cause shown pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26(c)(1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 4 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. 5 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of confidential, 6 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure may be 7 warranted pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties 8 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 9 discovery and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that 10 are entitled under law to treatment as confidential. 11 2. SCOPE. 12 All documents produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery requests, 13 and all deposition testimony and exhibits and any other materials which may be subject to 14 discovery (hereinafter collectively “Discovery Material”) shall be subject to this stipulated 15 protective order concerning confidential information as set forth below. Any party, or any third 16 party who produces documents in this litigation, may designate documents as Confidential but 17 only after review of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined that the 18 documents contain “Confidential Information,” as defined below, and pursuant to the procedure 19 set forth below. 20 3. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 21 “Confidential Information” shall mean information meriting special protection under the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law. Confidential Information does not 23 include information that: (a) is in the public domain at the time of disclosure; (b) becomes part of 24 the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; (c) the Receiving Party can show was 25 already in its rightful and lawful possession at the time of disclosure; or (d) the Receiving Party 26 lawfully receives from a Non-party later without restriction as to disclosure. 27 4. OTHER DEFINITIONS. 1 of record for a Party in this action (including their associates, paralegals, and support/clerical 2 staff). 3 Non-party: any individual, corporation, association, or natural person or entity other than a 4 party. 5 Protected Material: any Discovery Material containing Confidential Information that is 6 designated by a Party or Non-party as “CONFIDENTIAL,” unless the Receiving Party challenges 7 the confidentiality designation and (a) the Court decides such material is not entitled to protection 8 as confidential; (b) the Designating Party fails to apply the Court for an order designating the 9 material confidential within the time period specified below; or (c) the Designating Party 10 withdraws its confidentiality designation in writing. 11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-party that produces Discovery Material in this action. 12 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 13 Designating Party: a Party or Non-party that designates Discovery Material as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL”. The Party or Non-party designating information or items as Protected 15 Material bears the burden of establishing good cause for the confidentiality of all such items. 16 Challenging Party: a party that elects to initiate a challenge to a Designating Party’s 17 confidentiality designation. 18 5. FORM AND TIMING OF DESIGNATION. 19 Protected Material shall be so designated by the Producing Party by placing or affixing the 20 word “CONFIDENTIAL” on the document in a manner which will not interfere with the legibility 21 of the document and which will permit complete removal of the “Confidential” designation. 22 Documents shall be designated “Confidential” prior to, or contemporaneously with, the production 23 or disclosure of the documents. 24 A Designating Party must exercise restraint and make good faith efforts to limit 25 CONFIDENTIAL designations to specific materials that qualify for protection under the 26 appropriate standard. Further, a Designating Party must use good faith efforts to designate for 27 protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or communications that qualify – so that 1 warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. If only a portion or portions 2 of materials on a page or within a document merit protection, a Producing Party must so indicate 3 by making appropriate markings in the margins but not over text. 4 A Producing Party that makes original documents or materials available for inspection 5 need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated which material 6 it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all of the 7 material made available for inspection shall be deemed “Confidential.” After the inspecting Party 8 has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine 9 which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order, and, before 10 producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the appropriate legend on each 11 page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 12 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 13 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriated markings in the margins or by redacting protected 14 portions). 15 Portions of depositions shall be designated Confidential when the deposition is taken or 16 within fourteen (14) business days after receipt of the transcript, if feasible. Such designation shall 17 be specific as to the pages and lines to be protected. A Designating Party must exercise restraint 18 and make good faith efforts to limit “CONFIDENTIAL” designations to specific testimony or 19 materials that qualify for protection under the appropriate standards. 20 Inadvertent or unintentional production of Protected Material without prior designation as 21 “Confidential” shall not be deemed a waiver, in whole or in part, of the right to designate 22 documents as Protected Material as otherwise allowed by this Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety
137 S. Ct. 38 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ALBERT MARCELLUS TAYLOR v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CLARK COUNTY, MEDIC WEST, INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-marcellus-taylor-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-clark-nvd-2025.