County of Kern v. Tyler Technologies, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 21, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-00853·Unknown

Opinion

1 EILEEN R. RIDLEY, CA Bar No. 151735 eridley@foley.com 2 ALAN R. OUELLETTE, CA Bar No. 272745 aouellette@foley.com 3 JAIME DORENBAUM, CA Bar No. 289555 jdorenbaum@foley.com 5 SUITE 1700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104-1520 6 TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 7 MARGO A. RAISON, COUNTY COUNSEL By: Andrew C. Thomson, Chief Deputy (SBN 149057) 9 Kern County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor 10 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Telephone: 661.868.3800 11 Facsimile: 661-868-3805

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff County of Kern 13 16 17 COUNTY OF KERN, ) Case No: 1:20-cv-00853-HBK-JDP ) 18 PLAINTIFF, ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ) ) 20 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) District Court Judge: Hon. Anthony W. Ishii ) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Helena M. Barch-Kuchta ) 22 ) ) 23 ) ) 24 )

25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant County of Kern (the “County” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant and 2 Counter-Claimant Tyler Technologies, Inc. (“Tyler” or “Defendant”), by and through their undersigned 3 counsel, hereby stipulate as set forth below and respectfully request that the Court enter this Stipulated 4 Protective Order: 7 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private 8 information or items for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 9 other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 10 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 11 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 12 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 13 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 14 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 15 them to file confidential information or items under seal; Civil Local Rules 140 and 141 set forth the 16 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 17 from the court to file material under seal. 19 This action is likely to involve confidential and/or proprietary information or items for which 20 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 21 action is warranted. Such confidential and/or proprietary information and items may consist of, among 22 other things, information regarding confidential business practices and information implicating the 23 privacy rights of third parties, information which is otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 24 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 25 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 26 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information and 27 items the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 28 1 the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information and items is 2 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information and items will not be designated as 3 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 4 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 5 of the public record of this case. 7 2.1 Action: the above-captioned pending federal lawsuit, styled County of Kern v. Tyler 8 Technologies, Inc., Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:20-CV-00853-AWI-HBK. 9 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or 10 items under this Order. 11 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, 12 stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 15 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 16 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or 18 manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 19 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery 20 in this matter. 21 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 22 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant 23 in this Action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. House Counsel 25 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity 27 not named as a Party to this action. 28 1 are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that 2 Party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support 3 staff. 4 2.11 Party: the parties to this Action, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant County of Kern and 5 Defendant and Counter-Claimant Tyler Technologies, Inc., including all of each such parties’ officers, 6 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support 7 staffs). 8 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in 9 this Action. 10 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., 11 photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or 12 retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 13 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing 16 Party. 18 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as 19 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, 20 excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 21 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 22 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order 23 does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 25 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information and items that were designated as 26 “CONFIDENTIAL” or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will be 27 presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons 28 1 the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) 2 (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling 3 reasons” standard when merits-related documents are part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this 4 protective order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial.

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

County of Kern v. Tyler Technologies, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

County of Kern v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. (County of Kern v. Tyler Technologies, Inc.) — 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)