Anderson v. Clark County School District

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided January 9, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01514·Unknown

Opinion

Nevada Bar No. 01625 Nevada Bar No. 07743 WHITNEY L. WELCH-KIRMSE Nevada Bar No. 12129 ALIX R. GOLDSTEIN Nevada Bar No. 16540 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: ferrariom@gtlaw.com hendricksk@gtlaw.com whitney.welchkirmse@gtlaw.com alix.goldstein@gtlaw.com C ounsel for Defendant JEREMY ANDERSON, as guardian of the CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01514 person and estate of WILLIAM ANDERSON, JEREMY ANDERSON (individually and as the father of William Anderson), and JULIANA STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY ANDERSON (individually and as the mother of AGREEMENT AND [PROPOSED] William Anderson) PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiffs, v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pursuant to the Stipulation contained herein, by and among counsel for Plaintiffs WILLIAM ANDERSON (by and through his guardian JEREMY ANDERSON), JULIANA ANDERSON and JEREMY ANDERSON, individually (“Plaintiffs”), and counsel of record for Defendant CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“CCSD” together with Plaintiffs, collectively, the “Parties” and individually, a “Party”), the Court hereby finds as follows: 1. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery, or any categories of information not specifically addressed herein, and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to CONFIDENTIAL treatment under the applicable legal principles, and designated “CONFIDENTIAL” as described herein. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth further below, that this Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order does not entitle them to file CONFIDENTIAL information under seal or otherwise change Federal or Local rules, procedures, and standards to be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. The Party who designates a particular document “CONFIDENTIAL” is required to meet the legal standards authorizing sealing by submitting a memorandum of points and authorities to the Court making a particularized showing why the document should be sealed. Filing of provisionally sealed documents must also comply with Local Rule IA 10-5 as further set forth in Section 22. 2. In addition to the procedures set forth in Section 17 herein, if a Party receives the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of documents constituting attorney work product, attorney client privilege or other confidential materials from the other Party, it must immediately notify the sender, promptly return or destroy such documents to prevent further disclosure, may not rely on such information in the Litigation, and the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure shall not constitute waiver of any such privilege. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The “Litigation” shall mean the above-captioned case, Anderson et al. v. Clark County School District, filed in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case Number 2:24-cv-01514. 4. “Documents” or “Information” shall mean and include any documents (whether in hard copy or electronic form), records, correspondence, analyses, assessments, statements (financial or otherwise), responses to discovery, tangible articles or things, whether documentary or oral, and other information provided, served, disclosed, filed, or produced, whether voluntarily or through discovery or other means, in connection with this Litigation. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of these terms. 5. “Party” (or “Parties”) shall mean one party (or all parties) in this Litigation, and their in-house and outside counsel. “Producing Party” shall mean any person or entity who provides, serves, discloses, files, or produces any Documents or Information. “Receiving Party” shall mean any person or entity who receives any such Documents or Information. 6. The privacy of students is protected under federal law whether they are parties to the Litigation or not. As a school district that receives federal funding, CCSD is bound by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and is not at liberty to disclose personally identifying information of its students without written consent or court order. The Parties acknowledge that information that could be reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence in this Litigation could contain information that is protected by FERPA. In addition, personnel files of employees involved in an incident are private in nature. As a result, their use must be limited to protect the individuals’ fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. See El Dorado Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (1987). Accordingly, the Parties agree that, in conjunction with discovery proceedings in this Litigation, the Parties may designate any Document, thing, material, testimony, or other Information derived therefrom, which is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles, as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of this Order, and that anything designated as such shall not be provided or made available to third parties except as permitted by, and in accordance with, the provisions of this Order. Confidential information includes information that qualifies for confidential treatment under applicable legal principles, which may include information contained in personnel files of CCSD employees and/or information that has not been made public and contains trade secret, proprietary and/or sensitive business or personal information, and/or any (personal) information about students that is protected by FERPA. 7. In addition, if any party requests documents or other evidence that are subject to FERPA, the Parties acknowledge that a Court Order requiring such a disclosure must first be obtained. If such a court order is granted, and disclosure of FERPA protected information is required, the Parties acknowledge FERPA protected information will be marked confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order. 8. CONFIDENTIAL Documents shall be so designated by marking or stamping each page of the Document produced to or received from a Party with the legend “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9. Testimony taken at a deposition may be designated as CONFIDENTIAL by any Party making a statement to that effect on the record at the deposition or within ten (10) business days of receipt of the transcript. Arrangements shall be made with the court reporter taking and transcribing such deposition to separately bind such portions of the transcript and deposition exhibits containing Information designated as CONFIDENTIAL, and to label such portions appropriately. Counsel for the Parties may also designate an entire deposition transcript as CONFIDENTIAL at the time of the deposition or within ten (10) business days of receipt of the transcript. 10. CONFIDENTIAL Information shall be maintained in strict confidence by the Parties who receive such information, shall be used solely for the purposes of this Litigation, and shall not be disclosed to any person except: a. The United States District Court, District of Nevada, or any other court to which this matter may be transferred (the “Court”), so long as the party seeking to file a confidential document under seal complies with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and the Court’s electronic filing procedures set forth in Local Rule 10-5(b); b. In the event of an appeal, the United States Court of Appeals (the “Appellate Court”) and/or the Un

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

Anderson v. Clark County School District, (D. Nev. 2025).

Anderson v. Clark County School District (Anderson v. Clark County School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court
190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)