C.T., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem PAMELA ROSS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MELISSA OLSZEWSKI (fka Melissa Walker), SHAWN HALLAND, and DOES 1–50

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 5, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-01988·Unknown

Opinion

1 ANH PHOONG SALCEDO, NV Bar No. 16750 Anh@phoonglaw.com 2 PHOONG LAW 5980 S. Rainbow Blvd., #200 3 Las Vegas, NV 89118 Tel: (866) 468-1246 4 Fax: (888) 546-3834 5 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 C.T., a minor by and through his Case No. 2:25-cv-01988-MMD-BNW Guardian Ad Litem PAMELA ROSS, 9 STIPULATED 10 Plaintiff, CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND 11 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, District Judge Miranda M. Du 13 MELISSA OLSZEWSKI (fka Melissa Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler Walker), SHAWN HALLAND, and 14 DOES 1–50, Date Filed: October 16, 2025 Trial Date: To be Assigned 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff C.T., by and through his Guardian ad Litem PAMELA ROSS 18 (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Clark County School District (“CCSD”) and Shawn 19 Halland (“Halland”), hereinafter collectively the “Parties”, by and through their 20 respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 21 Pursuant to the Stipulation contained herein, by and among counsel for 22 Plaintiff C.T., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem PAMELA ROSS, and counsel 23 for Defendants CLARK COUNTRY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“CCSD”), and SHAWN 24 HALLAND (“Halland”), and Pro Se Defendant, Melissa Olszewski, the Court hereby 25 finds as follows: 26 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 27 1. Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve 1 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 2 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties hereby jointly stipulate to 3 and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and 4 Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does 5 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery, or any 6 categories of information not specifically addressed herein, and that the protection it 7 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 8 that are entitled to CONFIDENTIAL treatment under the applicable legal principles, 9 and designated “CONFIDENTIAL” as described herein. The parties further 10 acknowledge, as set forth further below, that this Stipulated Confidentiality 11 Agreement and Protective Order does not entitle them to file CONFIDENTIAL 12 information under seal or otherwise change Federal or Local rules, procedures, and 13 standards to be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 14 under seal. The “Litigation” shall mean the above-captioned case, C.T. v. Clark County 15 School District, et al., filed in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case 16 Number 2:25-cv-01988-MMD-BNW. 17 2. “Documents” or “Information” shall mean and include any documents 18 (whether in hard copy or electronic form), records, correspondence, analyses, assessments, 19 statements (financial or otherwise), responses to discovery, tangible articles or things, 20 whether documentary or oral, and other information provided, served, disclosed, filed, or 21 produced, whether voluntarily or through discovery or other means, in connection with 22 this Litigation. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning 23 of these terms. 24 3. “Party” (or “Parties”) shall mean one party (or all parties) in this Litigation, 25 and their in-house and outside counsel. “Producing Party” shall mean any person or entity 26 who provides, serves, discloses, files, or produces any Documents or Information. 27 “Receiving Party” shall mean any person or entity who receives any such Documents or 1 4. Personnel files of employees involved in an incident may contain 2 confidential information. As a result, the use of confidential information in personnel files 3 must be limited to protect the individuals’ fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by 4 the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. See, El 5 Dorado Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 190 Cal. App. 3d 6 342 (1987). Accordingly, the Parties agree that, in conjunction with discovery proceedings 7 in this Litigation, the Parties may designate any Document, thing, material, testimony, 8 or other Information derived therefrom, which they in good faith believe contains non- 9 public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal 10 principles, as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of this Confidentiality Agreement and 11 Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”), and that anything designated as such shall not be 12 provided or made available to third parties except as permitted by, and in accordance 13 with, the provisions of this Order. Confidential information includes information that 14 qualifies for confidential treatment under applicable legal principles, which may include 15 information contained in personnel files of CCSD employees and/or information that has 16 not been made public and contains trade secret, proprietary and/or sensitive business or 17 personal information. 18 5. The Parties acknowledge that discoverable information in this litigation 19 may contain student records protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy 20 Act (“FERPA”). The Parties have been meeting and conferring regarding a mechanism 21 for disclosure of such records wherein CCSD complies with FERPA’s notice provisions 22 (i.e., a Court Order and pre-disclosure notice to parents with opportunity to object) and 23 Plaintiff can access evidence relating to non-party students under this protective order. 24 To date the Parties have been unable to reach an agreement on such a mechanism and 25 Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion on the issue. 26 6. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for 27 protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific 1 designations are prohibited. 2 7. CONFIDENTIAL Documents shall be so designated by marking or 3 stamping each page of the Document produced to or received from a Party with the 4 legend “CONFIDENTIAL.” The application of the legend must be made in a manner 5 so as not to render the documents illegible, illegible after photocopying, or incapable of 6 being subjected to Optical Scanning Recognition. If only a portion or portions of the 7 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 8 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9 margins). 10 8. Testimony taken at a deposition may be designated as CONFIDENTIAL 11 within 45 days before the close of discovery or ten (10) business days of receipt of the 12 transcript in any form if the deposition takes place after the aforementioned 45-day 13 period. Arrangements shall be made with the court reporter taking and transcribing 14 such deposition to separately bind such portions of the transcript and deposition 15 exhibits containing Information designated as CONFIDENTIAL, and to label such 16 portions appropriately. CONFIDENTIAL Information shall be maintained in strict 17 confidence by the Parties who receive such information, shall be used solely for the 18 purposes of this Litigation, and shall not be disclosed to any person except: 19 a. The United States District Court, District of Nevada, or any other 20 court to which this matter may be transferred (the “Court”), so long as the party 21 seeking to file a confidential document under seal complies with the Ninth 22 Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 23 (9th Cir. 2006) and the Court’s electronic filing procedures set forth in Local Rule 24 10-5(b); 25 b.

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

C.T., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem PAMELA ROSS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MELISSA OLSZEWSKI (fka Melissa Walker), SHAWN HALLAND, and DOES 1–50, (D. Nev. 2026).

C.T., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem PAMELA ROSS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MELISSA OLSZEWSKI (fka Melissa Walker), SHAWN HALLAND, and DOES 1–50 (C.T., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem PAMELA ROSS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MELISSA OLSZEWSKI (fka Melissa Walker), SHAWN HALLAND, and DOES 1–50) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boakai v. Gonzales
447 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2006)
Jenkins v. Tuneup Masters
190 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)