Arceo v. City of Roseville

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 27, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-02334·Unknown

Opinion

Jennifer Fiore, Esq. (SBN: 203618) Sophia Achermann, Esq. (SBN: 262712) Alexandra A. Hamilton, Esq. (SBN: 280834) FIORE ACHERMANN, A Law Corp. 340 Pine Street, Suite 503 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel./Fax: (415) 550-0650 Email: jennifer@theFAfirm.com sophia@theFAfirm.com alexandra@theFAfirm.com Richard Margarita, Esq. (SBN: 175819) LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD P. MARGARITA 4750 J Street, Suite 19153 Sacramento, CA 95819 Tel: (916) 248-8570 Fax: (888) 346-7927 Email: richardmargarita@sbcglobal.net Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ALEJANDRO ARCEO; and ) No. 2:20-cv-02334-TLN-DB ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ) ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL vs. ) INFORMATION ) CITY OF ROSEVILLE; et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) In order to protect the confidentiality of personal, private and highly sensitive information regarding Plaintiff that is obtained by the parties in connection with this case, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that any and all information regarding Plaintiff’s medical records related to his mental and/or psychiatric health, including any treatment records, shall be confidential and subject to this Protective Order (hereinafter “Confidential Information.”) This Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, any and all facts regarding the nature, extent, location and duration of any injuries and any and all medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological treatment for, consequences of, and sequelae therefrom. 2. Any party or non-party may designate as “Confidential Information” any document or response to discovery which that party or non-party considers in good faith to contain confidential and/or protected information. For purposes of this Protective Order, the term “document” means all written, recorded, or graphic material, whether produced or created by a party or another person. 3. A party or non-party producing Confidential Information in formal or informal discovery shall produce a copy of such material by affixing the legend “CONFIDENTIAL,” where appropriate, to the material at the time such material is produced or disclosed. 4. Interrogatory answers, responses to requests for production, responses to requests for admission, deposition transcripts and exhibits, pleadings, motions, affidavits, and briefs that quote, summarize, or contain materials entitled to protection may be accorded status as Confidential Information, but, to the extent feasible, shall be prepared in such a manner that the Confidential Information is bound separately from information that is not entitled to protection as Confidential Information. 5. If any party wishes to set forth any Confidential Information as an exhibit or attachment to any brief, argument, filing, or other proceeding before the Court before trial, such Confidential Information shall be submitted and lodged under seal and shall be maintained by the clerk of the court under seal and such Confidential Information shall not be made available to anyone other than the Court and counsel for both parties. Upon completion of the court proceeding in which the Confidential Information is used it shall be returned to the party who submitted it. 6. Before any party files any motion or other filing (collectively referred to as “filing”) with this Court that references Confidential Information, the party who intends to file the filing agrees to notify Plaintiff at least seven days before the filing of its intent to reference the Confidential Information in the filing. If Plaintiff believes that the filing should be filed under seal pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 141 and FRCP 5.2 and 26, Plaintiff will inform the other party of his position. If the other party disagrees with Plaintiff’s position, the parties shall meet and confer before the filing. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue by way of the meet and confer, the parties agree to utilize Magistrate Judge Barnes’ informal discovery dispute procedure set forth in her standing information to resolve the issue. If the deadline for the filing occurs before the parties obtain a ruling from Magistrate Judge Barnes on the issue, Plaintiff agrees to waive an objection to the timeliness of the filing as long as the filing party informed Plaintiff of its intent to file the filing at least seven days prior to the deadline. The filing must then be filed within seven days of Magistrate Judge Barnes’ ruling on the issue. 7. Before trial, all documents and chamber copies containing Confidential Information which are submitted to the Court shall be filed with the Court in sealed envelopes or other appropriate sealed containers as required by the Court. 8. Any Defendant that seeks to use at trial material designated as Confidential shall give notice to Plaintiff of its intent to use that material before requesting that such material be marked as an exhibit. If the parties are unable to stipulate that the material be sealed, Plaintiff may immediately or thereafter move the Court for a sealing order pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 141 and FRCP 5.2 and 26. 9. All Confidential Information shall be accorded confidential status pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order unless the parties formally agree in writing to the contrary or a determination is made by the Court. 10. With the exception of those persons enumerated in paragraph 12 below, no Confidential Information may be disclosed to any person without the prior written consent of the Plaintiff. No confidential documents or information shall be used or communicated by any persons receiving them for any purpose whatsoever other than the preparation of this case for trial, which includes depositions, discovery proceedings, and motion practice. 11. No notes, lists, memoranda, index, electronic images, databases or compilation prepared based wholly or in part upon examination of Confidential Information shall be disseminated to anyone not authorized to have access to Confidential Information. 12. The Confidential Information is for the ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY. Except with the prior written consent of the other parties, or upon prior order of this Court obtained upon notice to all parties, confidential information and documents shall not be given, shown, made available or otherwise communicated in any way to any person other than: (a) Counsel for the respective parties to this litigation, including in-house counsel, outside counsel, and co-counsel for this litigation; (b) Employees of such counsel; (c) Individual parties or officers or employees of a party only to the extent deemed necessary by counsel for the prosecution or defense of this litigation; and (d) Outside experts and consultants. All such persons shall be bound by this Protective Order not to communicate further such documents and information. 13. Disclosure shall be made to outside experts and consultants only as is reasonably necessary for prosecuting or defending this lawsuit and only after the person to whom disclosure is made has been provided with a copy of this Protective Order and has agreed in writing to be bound by it. Before any Confidential Information may be disclosed to persons described in Subsections paragraph 12 above, each person to whom such Confidential Information is disclosed, except for Court officials and employees, shall be provided with a copy of this Protective Order and shall sign a written certification in the form of the undertaking attached as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. 14. After termination of this case, the provisions of this Protective Order shall continue to be binding. This Court retains and shall have jurisdiction over the parties, their attorneys and all recipients of confidential documents or information for t

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

Arceo v. City of Roseville, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Arceo v. City of Roseville (Arceo v. City of Roseville) — 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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)