Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 20, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00903·Unknown

Opinion

1|IPORTER SCOTT 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 3 Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383 350 University Ave., Suite 200 4 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 5 || FAX: 916.927.3706 6 || Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 7 DEPARTMENT and SCOTT R. JONES

8 Mark E. Merin, SBN 043849 Paul H. Masuhara, SBN 289805 g || LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 1Q || Sacramento, CA 95814 TEL: (916) 443-6911 11 || FAX: 916) 447-8336 2 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 || ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, No. 2:20-cv-00903-KJM-DB TAIAH THOMAS, TAIONNAA 18 || THOMAS, ANITA THOMAS, and STIPULATED ANTHONY WALLACE, PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 RE: MEDICAL RECORDS 20 Plaintiffs, 21 22 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 23 || SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT R. JONES, and 24 || DOES 1-50, 25 Defendants. 26 || 27 28

{02311114.DOCX} STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION 2 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 3 in Section C is likely to involve production of confidential or private information for which protection 4 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be 5 warranted. This protective order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or discovery 6 activity; the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that are described in 7 Section C, if subject to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). This protective order does not entitle any 8 party to file information designated as protected or confidential under seal, where E.D. Cal. L.R. 141 9 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a 10 party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 11 B. DEFINITIONS 12 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 13 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now 14 or later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action 15 consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 16 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the Documents that Defendants 17 designate as “Confidential” in the manner set forth in this Protective Order. 18 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 19 Protective Order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined in good 20 faith by the attorneys representing the Designating Party to be subject to protection pursuant to Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 26(c). Confidential Documents, material, and/or information shall be used solely for purposes of 22 litigation. Confidential Information shall not be used by the non-Designating Party for any business or 23 other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all Parties to this action or as authorized by further order of 24 the Court. 25 4. “Defendants” shall mean COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY 26 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and SCOTT R. JONES. 27 5. “Plaintiffs” shall mean ESTATE OF ANTONIO THOMAS, TAIJAH THOMAS, 28 TAIONNAA THOMAS, ANITA THOMAS, and ANTHONY WALLACE 1 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants, identified above. 2 C. INFORMATION COVERED 3 Covered Information: 4 Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection 5 under this Protective Order is limited to the following: 6 1. Antonio Thomas’ Correctional Health Services medical records for the incarceration 7 beginning December 6, 2019, Bates labeled DEFS00099-00102; and 8 2. Antonio Thomas’ Correctional Health Services medical records for all prior 9 incarcerations with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Bates labeled DEFS00298-01651. 10 Particularized Need for Protection: 11 Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(2), Defendants maintain that a specific, particularized need 12 for protection as to the information covered by this Protective Order exists. Plaintiffs have not been 13 permitted access to these materials pre-production and, as a result, rely upon Defendants and their 14 counsels’ representations. Defendants represent to the Court that the materials designated to be covered 15 by this Protective Order are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Fed. R. 16 Civ. P. 26(c), and does not include information which has been subject to protection on a blanket or 17 indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th 18 Cir. 2011) (identifying a two-part test for obtaining a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). 19 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 20 Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(3), Defendants maintain the need for protection pursuant to 21 this Protective Order is for the convenience of the parties and the Court. The parties seek to avoid 22 litigation and expenditure of resources concerning a potential Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) motion for protective 23 order. The entry of this Protective Order prevents the parties and the Court from conducting the usual 24 document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), in favor of a 25 procedure whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants and their counsels’ 26 representations. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986) (“[T]he 27 burden of justifying the confidentiality of each and every document sought to be covered by a protective 28 order remains on the party seeking the protective order; any other conclusion would turn [Fed. R. Civ. 1 P.] 26(c) on its head.”). As a result, production may be made with this Protective Order in place and, if 2 necessary, will permit challenges to the documents covered by this Protective Order. 3 D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” by the 5 Defendants and produced subject to the following Protective Order: 6 1. The Confidential Documents shall be used solely in connection with the above-captioned 7 civil case, and in the preparation and trial of the case. The Parties do not waive any objections to the 8 admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial. 9 2. Defendants will designate the Confidential Documents as confidential by affixing a mark 10 labelling them “Confidential.” 11 3. The Confidential Documents may only be disclosed to the following persons: 12 a. Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. 13 MERIN, partners and associate attorneys in that office, if any, as counsel for Plaintiffs in the case 14 enumerated above; 15 b. Carl L. Fessenden and Suli A. Mastorakos of PORTER SCOTT, partners and 16 associate attorneys in that office, as counsel for Defendants in the case enumerated above; 17 c. Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel 18 referred to in subparts (a) and (b) immediately above, including stenographic deposition reporters or 19 videographers retained in connection with this action; 20 d. The Parties to this action, including Plaintiffs and Defendants; 21 e.

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

Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento (Estate of Antonio Thomas v. County of Sacramento) — 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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
785 F.2d 1108 (Third Circuit, 1986)