Bateson v. Renown Health

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 4, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-00289·Unknown

Opinion

WILLIAM J. GEDDES Nevada Bar No. 6984 KRISTEN R. GEDDES Nevada Bar No. 9027 THE GEDDES LAW FIRM, P.C. 1575 Delucchi Lane, Suite 206 Reno, Nevada 89502 Phone: (775) 853-9455 Fax: (775) 299-5337 Email: Will@TheGeddesLawFirm.com Email: Kristen@TheGeddesLawFirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Donna Bateson DONNA BATESON, an individual, CASE NO.: 3:20-cv-00289-MMD-CLB Plaintiff,

vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RENOWN HEALTH, a domestic nonprofit Regarding corporation. CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCUMENTS Defendants. PRODUCED IN LITIGATION Pursuant to Federal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 26(f) and U.S. District Court of Nevada Rule (“Local Rule”) 26-1(e), the parties through their respective counsel, hereby submit the following Stipulated Protective Order. WHEREAS: the parties to the above-captioned litigation anticipate that discovery will require the parties to disclose records and information that are confidential and sensitive, including because such records are anticipated to include the parties’ private employment records and private medical records; and WHEREAS: the parties seek to protect and prevent the improper dissemination of such confidential and private records and information to third parties, during the course of litigation and after the litigation has ended; / / / / / / THEREFORE: the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request the Court issue an Order (“Stipulated Protective Order”), protecting the confidential nature of certain records and information as may be produced during the course of the above-captioned matter, as follows: 1. If any person or entity, whether or not a party to the instant action, produces or receives answers to interrogatories, or documents or other things, which the producing or receiving person or entity considers in good faith to be “Confidential Information,” as defined in § II(3)(A)(I) infra; or 2. If there is deposition testimony which any person or entity, whether or not a party to the instant action, believes in good faith contains “Confidential Information,” as defined in § II(3)(A)(I) infra; or 3. Third parties produce information which the third parties or the parties to this matter assert in good faith is confidential, the following procedure shall govern pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 26 (c) et. seq.: A. Any documents (and the contents thereof), things or information falling within the definition of “Confidential Information,” set forth in § II(3)(A)(I) infra, that are produced may be designated and marked, in whole or in part, without regard to whether redactions are made, “Confidential” by the party producing the documents or information, at the time the documents are delivered to or made available for inspection by any party; I. “Confidential Information” includes, but is not limited to: (a) employment records of any employees or former employees of any party; (b) confidential notes, memoranda, and statements regarding non-party employees; (c) confidential information concerning the discipline and/or termination of non-party employees and former employees; (d) the production of information or documents proprietary to any party, including by way of example and not limitation, tax records, financial statements; (e) other private information of any party or non-party to the present litigation, including consumer records, e.g., phone bills; (f) financial records and business records of any person or entity, whether a party or non-party to the present litigation; and (g) medical records, including medical bills and psychological records, and medical information of any person, whether a party or non-party to the present litigation. B. If a party produces to another party items that contain Confidential Information as defined above, that party may designate one or more documents, or a portion of a document, as “Confidential” when producing that document to the other party. Such designation shall be made by marking, stamping or typing the word “Confidential” on each page of the document at the time it is produced to the receiving party’s counsel; C. Any party may designate deposition testimony as “Confidential” by orally making such a designation on the record either at the commencement of the deposition, at the time the testimony is given, and/or before the end of that day's questioning. Following such a designation, the court reporter shall mark “Confidential” on the transcript or the portion thereof containing the “Confidential” testimony. Aside from the witness, no person shall attend any portion of any deposition containing testimony regarding Confidential Information except the parties and counsel for the parties unless such person agrees to abide by this Order. Any court reporter who transcribes testimony in this action at a deposition shall agree, before transcribing any such testimony, that all testimony containing Confidential Information is and shall remain Confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in this Order and that copies of any transcript, reporter’s notes or any other transcription records of any such testimony will be retained in absolute confidentiality and safekeeping by such shorthand reporter or delivered to attorneys of record; D. In addition, documents or items produced by one party may be designated “Confidential” by the other party, i.e., the receiving party, by: I. marking the document, in whole or in part, “Confidential” in the same manner as stated above; and II. then forwarding a copy of the marked document back to the producing party; E. In this regard, the receiving party seeking the “Confidential” designation may designate, by number, each document it believes should be “Confidential”; F. If the receiving party has no objection to the “Confidential” designation made by the producing party, the receiving party may either expressly notify the producing party or allow the fourteen calendar-day objection period (set forth below) to lapse. Where there has been no written objection made, once a document or item has been produced and designated as provided herein to the receiving party, the document or item shall be treated as “Confidential,” respectively, pursuant to this Stipulated Protective Order, until further order of the Court; 4. The following protocol shall apply in the event of an objection to a designation of “Confidential”: A. If there is an objection to the “Confidential” designation, the party so objecting must notify the other party in writing of both the objection and the grounds for the objection within fourteen calendar days from the date the designation was made or the document(s)/item(s) received, whichever is later, and the procedure in § II(4)(B) infra, shall apply; B. If the parties do not agree that the documents, information or testimony should be treated as confidential, the parties shall attempt to resolve the issue by meeting and conferring. If a resolution does not occur, either party may file a motion with the Court to resolve the dispute. Such motion must be filed within 30 calendar days of receipt of the written objection to the designation, unless stipulated otherwise by counsel. If an objection has been raised, the documents, testimony and/or information at issue shall be governed by § II (3)(A)-(F), inclusive, of this Stipulated Protective Order, and treated and regarded as “Confidential” from the date of disclosure and/or production until the dispute is resolved informally by the parties or a final order is issued by the Court resolving the dispute. In the event of such motion, the parties having entered into this Stipulation and the existence of the Court's Order entered thereon shall not affect the burden of proof on any such

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

Bateson v. Renown Health, (D. Nev. 2020).

Bateson v. Renown Health (Bateson v. Renown Health) — 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)