Casteel v. Aranas

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided December 28, 2022·No. 3:20-cv-00381·Unknown

Opinion

11 CASEY W. TYLER, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.: 9706 2 RICHARD D. DE JONG 3 Nevada Bar No.: 15207 HALL PRANGLE & SCHOONVELD, LLC 4 1140 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 350 Las Vegas, NV 89144 5 (702) 889-6400 — Office (702) 384-6025 — Facsimile 6 Email: efile@hpslaw.com Attorney for Defendant 7 Hometown Health/Renown Medical io || SCOTT CASTEEL, CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-00381-ART-CLB it Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING DEFENDANT HOMETOWN VS. HEALTH/RENOWN MEDICAL’S BE OB SIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE < ROMEO ARANAS, et al., ORDER w Defendants.

2a 16 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Z Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of

3 8 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 19 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 20 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated 21 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on 22 all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 23 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 24 95 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 97 under seal. 28 one

1 } 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation ot 3 information or items under this Order. 4 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 5 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule © | of Civil Procedure 26(c). 7 2.3. Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 8 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 3 3 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 covery int responses to discovery in this matter.

6 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to = 7 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a ig || Consultant in this action. 19 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House 0 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2] 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 22 entity not named as a Party to this action. 23 2.9 Qutside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 24 ! action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action 25 ! on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 26 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 27 ! consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 28 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery

1 Material in this action. 2 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 3 iI(e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and 4 organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and > |] subcontractors. 6 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. 4 10 3 SCOPE 3 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material 3 (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, E is conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 16 However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following 17 information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Z ig || Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as 19 {a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the 20 {| public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party 21 prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who 22 obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating 23 Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 24 114. DURATION 25 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by 26 this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court 27 ll order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all 28 claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after

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

Casteel v. Aranas, (D. Nev. 2022).

Casteel v. Aranas (Casteel v. Aranas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Lowell M. Birrell
447 F.2d 1168 (Second Circuit, 1971)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)