Estate of Christopher Temple v. County of Placer

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 16, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-01713·Unknown

Opinion

1 || Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805) 3 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 4|| Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 5 || E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com 6 paul@markmerin.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER TEMPLE 8 and AMBER SMITH 9'PORTER | SCOTT Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 11 || Matt Gross, SBN, 324007 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 12 || Sacramento, CA 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 13 |! PAX: 916.927.3706 14 || cfessenden@porterscott.com mgross@porterscott.com 15 Attorneys for Defendants SHERIFF’S OFFICE, WAYNE WOO, CODY MICHAEL, MELISSA ADAMS, 18 and CLAUDELL VAUGHAN 22 || ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER TEMPLE and Case No. 2:23-cv-01713-JAM-CKD AMBER SMITH, 23 Plaintiff STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ys auma’ss RE: PERSONNEL FILES; {PROPOSED} ORDER 25 || COUNTY OF PLACER, PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, WAYNE WOO, 26 |] CODY MICHAEL, MELISSA ADAMS, 7 and CLAUDELL VAUGHAN, Defendants. 28 a

3 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 4 in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from 5 public disclosure would be warranted. Plaintiffs have not been permitted to view the materials described 6 in this stipulated protective order. The parties acknowledge that this protective order does not confer 7 blanket protections on all disclosures or discovery activity, and that the protection it affords extends only 8 to the limited information or items identified herein which are entitled to such protection under Federal 9 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties further acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does 10 not entitle any party to file information designated herein as protected or confidential under seal, where 11 Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be 12 applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 14 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 15 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 16 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action 17 consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 18 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendants 19 designate as “Confidential” and described in section C. 20 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 21 stipulated protective order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined 22 in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection pursuant to 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information shall be 24 used solely for purposes of litigation. Confidential information shall not be used by the non-designating 25 party for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all parties to this action or as 26 authorized by further order of the Court. 27 4. “Defendants” shall mean the COUNTY OF PLACER, PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S 28 OFFICE, WAYNE WOO, CODY MICHAEL, MELISSA ADAMS, and CLAUDELL VAUGHAN, and 1 any other Defendant(s) that may subsequently be added to this action. 2 5. “Plaintiffs” shall mean the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER TEMPLE and AMBER 4 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants, identified above.

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

Estate of Christopher Temple v. County of Placer, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Estate of Christopher Temple v. County of Placer (Estate of Christopher Temple v. County of Placer) — 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)