Alexander v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 12, 2024·No. 2:24-cv-00074·Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 LATIA ALEXANDER, individually as heir of ISAIAH T. WILLIAMS, and in her capacity as 9 Special Administrator of the Estate of ISAIAH T. Case No.: 2:24-cv-00074-APG-NJK WILLIAMS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 13 DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; KERRY KUBLA, in his 14 individual capacity; BRICE CLEMENTS, in his individual capacity; ALEX GONZALES, in his 15 individual capacity; RUSSELL BACKMAN, in his individual capacity; JAMES 16 ROTHENBURG, in his individual capacity; JAMES BERTUCCINI, in his individual 17 capacity; and DOES I-XX, inclusive,

18 Defendants.

19 KERRY KUBLA,

20 Counterclaimant,

21 vs.

22 LATIA ALEXANDER in her capacity as Special Administrator of the Estate of ISAIAH T. 23 WILLIAMS,

24 Counterdefendant. 25 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 26 Plaintiffs seek to obtain, inspect and copy documents and/or things which Defendants Las 27 Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), Kerry Kubla, Brice Clements, Alex 28 Page 1 of 12 1 Gonzales, Russell Backman, James Rothenburg and James Bertuccini (“LVMPD Defendants”), 2 contend contain private and sensitive information, confidential information of LVMPD, its officers 3 and employees, its internal investigative and administrative actions, and other confidential 4 information. Pursuant to an agreement by the Parties, the Court hereby enters the following Order 5 for Protection (“Protective Order”): 6 TERMS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 7 I. DEFINITIONS 8 The following definitions apply to the Protective Order: 9 1. Party. Any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 10 consultants, Experts, and Outside Counsel. Party, as used in this Protective Order, shall also refer 11 to LVMPD, and its officers, agents and employees. 12 2. Disclosure or Discovery Material. All items or information, regardless of the 13 medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 14 transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 15 discovery in this matter. 16 3. “Confidential” Information or Items. Information (regardless of how generated, 17 stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under the law enforcement 18 investigative and/or official information privileges, or that contain Criminal History Information, 19 personal information regarding individuals including Social Security Numbers, dates of birth and 20 information which a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Confidential 21 information shall also include the parties’ contact information disciplinary action of non-party 22 employees, and medical information. 23 4. Receiving Party. A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material or 24 Confidential Information from a Producing Party. 25 5. Producing Party. A Party or third-party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 26 Material or Confidential Information in this action. 27 28 Page 2 of 12 1 6. Designating Party. A Party or third-party that designates information or items that 2 it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “Confidential.” 3 7. Protected Material. Any Disclosure or Discovery Material or Confidential 4 Information that is designated as “Confidential.” 5 8. Outside Counsel. Attorneys who are not employees of a Party but who are retained 6 to represent or advise a Party in this action. 7 9. House Counsel. Attorneys who are employees of a Party. 8 10. Counsel (without qualifier). Outside Counsel and House Counsel (as well as their 9 support staffs). 10 11. Expert. A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent 11 to the litigation retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant 12 in this action. This definition includes, but is not limited to, a professional jury or trial consultant 13 retained in connection with this litigation. 14 12. Professional Vendor. Person or entity that provides litigation support services (e.g., 15 photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, organizing, storing, 16 retrieving data in any form or medium; etc.) and its employees and subcontractors. 17 13. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural, and vice versa. 18 II. SCOPE 19 The protection conferred by this Protective Order covers not only Protected Material, but 20 also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies excerpts, summaries, or 21 compilations thereof, testimony, conversations, or presentations by parties or counsel to or in court 22 or in other settings that might reveal Protected Material. 23 III. DURATION 24 Even after the termination of this action, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 25 Protective Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a 26 court order otherwise directs. 27 28 Page 3 of 12 1 IV. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 2 1. Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided herein, or as 3 otherwise ordered, material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly 4 designated before it is disclosed or produced. Designations in conformity with this Order require: 5 a. For information in documentary form. That the Producing Party 6 shall affix the legend “Confidential” on each page that contains Protected Material. If only a 7 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 8 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate makings in the margins or 9 redacting protected portions). A Producing Party that makes original documents or materials 10 available for inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has 11 indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the 12 designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed “Confidential.” 13 After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the 14 Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under 15 this Order, and, before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the 16 appropriate legend on each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of 17 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 18 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriated markings in the margins or by redacting 19 protected portions). 20 b. For testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial 21 proceedings. That before the close of the deposition, hearing, or other proceeding, the Party or 22 non-party offering or sponsoring the testimony shall identify on the record all protected testimony 23 and further specify any portions of the testimony that qualify as “Confidential.” When it is 24 impractical to identify separately each portion of testimony that is entitled to protection, the Party 25 or non-party that sponsors, offers, or gives the testimony may invoke on the record (before the 26 deposition or proceeding is concluded) a right to have up to thirty (30) days to identify the specific 27 portions or the testimony as to which protection is sought. Only those portions of the testimony 28 Page 4 of 12 1 that are appropriately designated for protection under the standards set forth herein within the thirty 2 (30) days shall be covered by the provisions of this Protective Order.

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

Alexander v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, (D. Nev. 2024).

Alexander v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Alexander v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)