Daher v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 3, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02611·Unknown

Opinion

1/PORTER | SCOTT 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 3, || cfessenden@porterscott.com Cruz Rocha, SBN 279293 4 || crocha@porterscott.com 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 5 Sacramento, California 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 © || FAX: 916.927.3706 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 1| COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ANDREW SEIDEL, DAVID CUNEO, SARA DLUGOPOLSKI, PEDRO AVALOS, CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, 9 1] MARCELINA MARTINEZ, AIMEE RIVERA, JOE DURAN, WILLIAM ROBINSON, ANDREW 10 GONZALES, CHRISTOPHER PICANCO, JOHN LOPES, SERGEANT LOWERY, ALEX ZAKRZEWSKI, BRANDON WRIGHT, DETECTIVE RICHARD S. HAMILTON, LINDSEY LAMB, 11 CHRIS BRITTON Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103

B UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 || ELISA DAHER in her individual capacity CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02611-JAM-SCR and as successor-in-interest to JAIME 16 NARANJO, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 17 ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES Plaintiff, 18 FAC: 12/12/2024 19 Complaint Filed: 9/26/24 20 || COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 21 || OFFICE, ANDREW SEIDEL, DAVID CUNEO, SARA DLUGOPOLSKI, PEDRO AVALOS, CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, 23 |) MARCELINA MARTINEZ, AIMEE RIVERA, JOE DURAN, WILLIAM 24 ||ROBINSON, ANDREW GONZALES, 5 CHRISTOPHER PICANCO, JOHN LOPES, SERGEANT LOWERY, ALEX 26 |} ZAKRZEWSKI, BRANDON WRIGHT, DETECTIVE RICHARD S. HAMILTON, 27 || LINDSEY LAMB, AND CHRIS BRITTON, 28 Defendants. □ [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES

1 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION 3 The Parties believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 4 in section C of this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of confidential or private 5 information for which protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 6 prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. The Parties acknowledge that this protective order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or discovery activity, and that the protection it affords 8 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to such protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 26(c). The Parties further acknowledge that this protective order does not entitle any party to file 10 information designated as protected or confidential under seal, where E.D. Cal. L.R. 141 sets forth the 11 procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 12 permission from the Court to file material under seal. 13 The Parties jointly request entry of this proposed Stipulated Protective Order to limit the 14 disclosure, dissemination, and use of certain identified categories of confidential information. 15 B. DEFINITIONS 16 The following definitions shall apply to this Stipulated Protective Order: 17 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 18 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action consolidated 19 at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 20 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the Documents that Defendants 21 designate as “Confidential” in the manner set forth in this Stipulated Protective Order. 22 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 23 Protective Order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined in good 24 faith by the attorneys representing the Designating Party to be subject to protection pursuant to Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 26(c). Confidential Documents, material, and/or information shall be used solely for purposes of 26 litigation. Confidential Information shall not be used by the non-Designating Party for any business or 27 other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all Parties to this action or as authorized by further order of 28 the Court. 1 4. “Defendants” shall mean COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2 SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ANDREW SEIDEL, DAVID CUNEO, SARA DLUGOPOLSKI, PEDRO 3 AVALOS, CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, MARCELINA MARTINEZ, AIMEE RIVERA, JOE DURAN, 4 WILLIAM ROBINSON, ANDREW GONZALES, CHRISTOPHER PICANCO, JOHN LOPES, 5 SERGEANT LOWERY, ALEX ZAKRZEWSKI, BRANDON WRIGHT, DETECTIVE RICHARD S. 6 HAMILTON, LINDSEY LAMB, and CHRIS BRITTON. 7 5. “Plaintiff” shall mean ELISA DAHER in her individual capacity and as successor-in- 8 interest to JAIME NARANJO. 9 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiff and Defendants, identified above. 10 C. INFORMATION COVERED 11 Covered Information: 12 Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection 13 under this Stipulated Protective Order is limited to the following: 14 1. Personnel Files of ANDREW SEIDEL, including any documents related to investigation 15 of conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of discipline (except 16 to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7). 17 2. Personnel Files of DAVID CUNEO, including any documents related to investigation of 18 conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of discipline (except 19 to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7). 20 3. Personnel Files of SARA DLUGOPOLSKI, including any documents related to 21 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of 22 discipline (except to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal 23 Code § 832.7). 24 4. Personnel Files of PEDRO AVALOS, including any documents related to investigation of 25 conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of discipline (except 26 to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7). 27 5. Personnel Files of CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, including any documents related to 28 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of 1 discipline (except to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal 2 Code § 832.7). 3 6. Personnel Files of MARCELINA MARTINEZ, including any documents related to 4 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of 5 discipline (except to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal 6 Code § 832.7). 7 7. Personnel Files of AIMEE RIVERA, including any documents related to investigation of 8 conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of discipline (except 9 to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7). 10 8. Personnel Files of JOE DURAN, including any documents related to investigation of 11 conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of discipline (except 12 to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal Code § 832.7). 13 9. Personnel Files of WILLIAM ROBINSON, including any documents related to 14 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of 15 discipline (except to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal 16 Code § 832.7). 17 10. Personnel Files of ANDREW GONZALES, including any documents related to 18 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of 19 discipline (except to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal 20 Code § 832.7). 21 11. Personnel Files of CHRISTOPHER PICANCO, including any documents related to 22 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations or complaints, and imposition of 23 discipline (except to the extent subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal 24 Code § 832.7). 25 12.

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

Daher v. County of Sacramento, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Daher v. County of Sacramento (Daher v. County of Sacramento) — 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)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
785 F.2d 1108 (Third Circuit, 1986)