Arceo v. City of Roseville

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 16, 2022·No. 2:20-cv-02334·Unknown

Opinion

1 |\poRTER scoTT 2 || APROFESSIONAL CORPORATION William E. Camy, SBN 291397 3 || Megan N. Robertson, SBN 340235 350 University Avenue, Suite 200 4 Sacramento, California 95825 5 TEL: 916.929.1481 FAX: 916.927.3706 6 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GARY SMITH, CURTIS WATKINS, ADRIAN COGHLAN, BRIAN LEWIS, DANIEL TIMONEY, DERRICK PHELPS, JAMES HAGGERTY, LEE HENDRICK, SETH 7 ADDINGTON, and JAMES MACCOUN g Exempt from filing fee pursuant to Government Code section 6103 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1] 12 ALEJANDRO ARCEO, No. 2:20-cv-2334 TLN DB 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 15 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GARY SMITH, 16 CURTIS WATKINS, ADRIAN COGHLAN, BRIAN LEWIS, DANIEL TIMONEY, DARRYL 17 || LOPEZ, DERRICK PHELPS, JAMES HAGGERTY, LEE HENDRICK, SETH 18 ADDINGTON, JAMES MACCOUN, COUNTY OF PLACER, DEVON BELL, DAVID 19 POWERS, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, 0 ASHLEY JOEL PILGRIM, M.D., SUTTER ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, SUTTER HEALTH, CEP AMERICA — CALIFORNIA 21 ||DBA VITUITY HOSPITALISTS, and DOES 1 Through 250, Inclusive, Defendants. / 23 24 25 26 27 28 {02725027.DOCX} STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

1 Plaintiff ALEJANDRO ARCEO and Defendants CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GARY SMITH, 2 CURTIS WATKINS, ADRIAN COGHLAN, BRIAN LEWIS, DANIEL TIMONEY, DARRYL LOPEZ, 3 DERRICK PHELPS, JAMES HAGGERTY, LEE HENDRICK, SETH ADDINGTON, JAMES 4 MACCOUN, COUNTY OF PLACER, DEVON BELL, DAVID POWERS, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC 5 MEDICAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, ASHLEY JOEL PILGRIM, M.D., SUTTER ROSEVILLE 6 MEDICAL CENTER, SUTTER HEALTH, CEP AMERICA – CALIFORNIA DBA VITUITY 7 HOSPITALISTS (“Defendants”), by and through their respective counsels, hereby stipulate and in good 8 faith believe that documents potentially within the scope of discovery for the instant matter, including but 9 not limited to the documents identified below that have been requested by Plaintiff, are subject to 10 protection pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The terms of this protective order shall apply to the items 11 listed below and any future production of confidential documents that Defendants—or Plaintiff—may 12 designate in good faith to be confidential. 13 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 On May 27, 2021, the parties stipulated and this Court ordered (see Doc. 47) that any and all 15 information regarding Plaintiff’s medical records related to his mental and/or psychiatric health, including 16 any treatment records, shall be confidential and subject to the May 27, 2021 Protective Order, including, 17 but not limited to, any and all facts regarding the nature, extent, location and duration of any injuries and 18 any and all medical, psychiatric, and/or psychological treatment for, consequences of, and sequelae 19 therefrom. 20 The City Defendants take the position that certain personnel records for police officers, including 21 confidential information in the officers’ personnel files and confidential information in investigation 22 reports, are subject to protection pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and request a protective order. 23 To prevent duplicative and contradicting processes, the parties stipulate that the following 24 stipulated terms and conditions apply for Plaintiff’s medical records that have already been designated 25 confidential in lieu of the May 27, 2021 Protective Order (Doc. 47) as well as the future production of 26 confidential documents by any party. 27 28 {02725027.DOCX} 1 A. DEFINITIONS 2 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 3 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 4 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action consolidated 5 at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 6 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the Documents that Defendants or 7 Plaintiff designate as “Confidential” in the manner set forth in this Protective Order. 8 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 9 Protective Order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined in good 10 faith by the attorneys representing the Designating Party to be subject to protection pursuant to Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 26(c). Confidential Documents, material, and/or information shall be used solely for purposes of 12 litigation. Confidential Information shall not be used by the non-Designating Party for any business or 13 other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all Parties to this action or as authorized by further order of 14 the Court. 15 4. “City Defendants” shall mean CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GARY SMITH, CURTIS WATKINS, 16 ADRIAN COGHLAN, BRIAN LEWIS, DANIEL TIMONEY, DERRICK PHELPS, JAMES HAGGERTY, LEE 17 HENDRICK, SETH ADDINGTON, and JAMES MACCOUN, and any of their employees later named as 18 Defendants, if any. 19 5. “Defendants” shall mean CITY OF ROSEVILLE, GARY SMITH, CURTIS WATKINS, 20 ADRIAN COGHLAN, BRIAN LEWIS, DANIEL TIMONEY, DARRYL LOPEZ, DERRICK PHELPS, 21 JAMES HAGGERTY, LEE HENDRICK, SETH ADDINGTON, JAMES MACCOUN, COUNTY OF 22 PLACER, DEVON BELL, DAVID POWERS, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, 23 INCORPORATED, ASHLEY JOEL PILGRIM, M.D., SUTTER ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, 24 SUTTER HEALTH, and CEP AMERICA – CALIFORNIA DBA VITUITY HOSPITALISTS. 25 6. “Plaintiff” shall mean ALEJANDRO ARCEO. 26 7. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiff and Defendants, identified above. 27 28 {02725027.DOCX} 1 B. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by, among and between the parties through their counsel of record, 3 that the following terms apply to documents designated as “Confidential” by the Defendants or Plaintiff 4 and produced subject to the following Protective Order: 5 1. The Confidential Documents shall be used solely in connection with the civil case 6 Alejandro Arceo v. City of Roseville, et al. No. 2:20-cv-02334-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.) and in the preparation 7 and trial of the case. The Parties do not waive any objections to the admissibility of the documents or 8 portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial. 9 2. The “Designating Party” will designate the Confidential Documents as confidential by 10 affixing a mark labelling them “Confidential.” 11 3. The Confidential Documents may only be disclosed to the following persons: 12 (a) Counsel for Plaintiff, including partners and associate attorneys in their offices, as counsel 13 for Plaintiff in this case; 14 (b) Counsel for Defendants, including partners and associate attorneys in their offices, as 15 counsel for Defendants in this case; 16 (c) Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel referred to in 17 subparts (a) and (b), including stenographic deposition reporters or videographers retained in connection 18 with this action; 19 (d) Court personnel, including stenographic reporters or videographers engaged in proceedings 20 as are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial in the civil action; 21 (e) Any expert, consultant, or investigator retained in connection with this action, however, 22 such persons must be advised of and abide by this protective order; 23 (f) The finder of fact at the time of trial, subject to the court’s rulings on in limine motions and 24 objections of counsel; 25 (g) Witnesses during their depositions in this action.

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

Arceo v. City of Roseville, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

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)