Busamante v. County of Shasta

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 17, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-01552·Unknown

Opinion

PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 cfessenden@porterscott.com Matthew R. Mendoza, SBN 344482 mmendoza@porterscott.com 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, California 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 FAX: 916.927.3706 Attorneys for Defendants ROBERT BALKE (erroneously sue as Robert Balk) and JUSTIN KNIGHT Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 } AARON BUSTAMANTE, an individual, CASE NO. 2:23-CV-01552-TLN-DMC Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF RECORDS Vv. AND FOR FILING UNDER SEAL Complaint Filed: 07/28/23 COUNTY OF SHASTA; ROBERT BALK, in his individual and official capacity as a Probation Officer of the COUNTY OF SHASTA; JUSTIN. KNIGHT, in _ his individual capacity as a Probation Officer of the COUNTY OF SHASTA; and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Defendants, 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Defendant believes that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from public disclosure would be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court 2g to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF RECORDS AND FOR FILING UNDER SEAL

public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal. A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with California Rules of Court 2.550 and 2.551. 2. DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that the Designating Party believes in good faith is entitled to protective treatment under applicable law. Confidential Information shall not include publicly available information. 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. INFORMATION COVERED 1. Shasta County Employee Robert Balke Performance Evaluations (DEFS 00273 – DEFS 00285); 2. Shasta County Employee Justin Knight Performance Evaluations (DEFS 00286 – DEFS 00334); 3. Shasta County Employee Justin Knight Reprimands (DEFS 00335 – DEFS 00381); 4. Shasta County Employee Justin Knight Employment Application containing sensitive private information (DEFS 00382 – DEFS 00394); 5. Shasta County Employee Justin Knight Promotion File (DEFS 00395 – DEFS 00417); and, 6. Shasta County Employee Robert Balke Promotion File (DEFS 00418 – DEFS 00428). The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. Particularized Need for Protection: Plaintiff has requested defendants JUSTIN KNIGHT and ROBERT BALKE employee files. Pursuant to Local Rule141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, particularized need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. Defendants represent to the Court and Plaintiff that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated protective order are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and does not include information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non- Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific

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

Busamante v. County of Shasta, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

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

Related

In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or.
661 F.3d 417 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)