Athwal v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 22, 2019·No. 1:15-cv-00311·Unknown

Opinion

1 Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney (SBN: 177476) CITY OF MODESTO 2 1010 10th Street, Suite 6300 PO BOX 642 3 Modesto, CA 95353 4 Telephone: (209) 577-5284 Facsimile: (209) 544-8260 5 Deborah J. Fox (SBN: 110929) 6 dfox@meyersnave.com David Mehretu (SBN: 269398) 7 dmehretu@meyersnave.com 8 Robert G. Davis (SBN: 304758) rdavis@meyersnave.com 9 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 10 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 808-2000 11 Facsimile: (510) 444-1108 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13 CITY OF MODESTO, CHIEF GALEN CARROLL and DETECTIVE JON EVERS 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 BALJIT ATHWAL; NAVNEET ATHWAL; Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM DALJIT ATWAL; and KARAN INC., d/b/a 18 POP-N-CORK, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

19 Plaintiffs, Trial Date: None Set v. 20 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF 21 TURLOCK; CITY OF MODESTO; CITY OF CERES; STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE 22 OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; KIRK BUNCH; JON EVERS; TIMOTHY REDD; 23 DALE LINGERFELT; STEVE JACOBSON; BIRGIT FLADAGER; GALEN CARROLL; 24 PAUL EDWARD JONES; DOE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS EMPLOYEES 1-10; DOE 25 CITY OF TURLOCK EMPLOYEES 11-20; DOE CITY OF MODESTO EMPLOYEES 26 21-30; and DOE CITY OF CERES EMPLOYEES 31-40, 27 Defendants. 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 3 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted, 5 including but not limited to: confidential investigative materials related to The People of the State 6 of California v. Frank C. Carson, et al., Stanislaus Superior Court Case No. 1490969; 7 investigation and other law enforcement related records concerning individual parties and 8 witnesses relevant to this case; confidential personnel records of peace officers; confidential 9 official information, including sensitive law enforcement deliberative information; and personal 10 financial, family, employment, and medical information. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate 11 to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The parties 12 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 13 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 14 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 15 principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Order 16 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Rule 141 of the Local Rules of 17 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sets forth the procedures that 18 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 19 court to file material under seal. 20 2. DEFINITIONS 21 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 22 information or items under this Order. 23 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 24 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 25 of Civil Procedure 26(c), including confidential investigative materials related to The People of the 26 State of California v. Frank C. Carson, et al., Stanislaus Superior Court Case No. 1490969; 27 investigation and other law enforcement related records concerning individual parties and 1 official information, including sensitive law enforcement deliberative information; and personal 2 financial, family, employment, and medical information. 3 2.3 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 4 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 5 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 6 2.4 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 7 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 8 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 9 responses to discovery in this matter. 10 2.5 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 11 the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as 12 a consultant in this action; (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party; and (3) at the time of 13 retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party. 14 2.6 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 15 Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another 16 Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by 17 less restrictive means, including confidential personnel records of peace officers; confidential 18 official information, including sensitive law enforcement deliberative information; and personal 19 financial, family, employment, and medical information. 20 2.7 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 21 entity not named as a Party to this action. 22 2.8 Counsel of Record: attorneys who have appeared in this action on behalf of the 23 party or governmental entity or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that 24 party. 25 2.9 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 26 consultants, retained experts, and Counsel of Record (and their support staff). 27 2.10 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 1 2.11 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 2 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstratives, and organizing, 3 storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 4 2.12 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 5 “CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 6 2.13 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 7 Producing Party. 8 3. SCOPE 9 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined 10 above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, 11 excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, 12 or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the 13 protections conferred by this Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information 14 that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the 15 public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a 16 violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; 17 and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the 18 Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and 19 under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at 20 trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 21 4. DURATION 22 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 23 Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order 24 otherwise directs.

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

Athwal v. County of Stanislaus, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Athwal v. County of Stanislaus (Athwal v. County of Stanislaus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)