Estate of Christopher Temple v. County of Placer

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 7, 2025·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 aus RE: OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS; {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. 6 Covered Information: 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under 8 this stipulated protective order is provided and limited to the following identified documents: 9 (1) Placer County Sheriff’s Office IA # 2018-0004 Re: Officer Involved Shooting of Samuel 10 Kolb [Bates # DEF 02522–DEF 02781]; 11 (2) Placer County Sheriff’s Office IA # 2021-0002 Re: Officer Involved Shooting of Albert 12 Savala [Bates # DEF 02782–DEF 03282]; 13 (3) Placer County Sherriff’s Office IA # 2022-0002 Re: Office Involved Shooting of Dennis 14 Lynch [Bates # DEF 03283–DEF 030507]; 15 (4) Placer County Sherriff’s Office IA #2022-003 Re: Officer Involved Shooting of Jacob 16 Stankovic [Bates # DEF 06889–DEF 07293]; and 17 (5) Placer County Sherriff’s Office Incident Reports involving a mental health crisis [Bates # 18 DEF 03508–DEF 06888]. 19 Other than the specifically-identified documents above, no other information or documents are 20 covered by this stipulated protective order. If protection is sought for other information or documents not 21 identified herein, the parties may seek a separate stipulated protective order or a party may move the 22 Court for a separate protective order. Nothing in this stipulated protective order covers information or 23 documents which were previously or are subsequently disclosed, including pursuant to California Penal 24 Code § 832.7. 25 Particularized Need for Protection: 26 Pursuant to Local Rule141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, particularized 27 need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. Defendants represent 28 to the Court and Plaintiffs that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated protective order 1 are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 26(c), and does not include information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re 3 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). 4 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 5 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order is for 6 the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of 7 resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the parties and the Court from conducting 9 the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection, in favor of a procedure 10 whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants’ good faith representations of the need 11 for protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986). As a 12 result, production may be made with this stipulated protective order in place and, if necessary, it will 13 permit discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for protection. 15 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” and produced 16 subject to this stipulated protective order: 17 1. The Confidential documents shall be used solely in connection with the above-captioned 18 civil case, and in the preparation and trial of the case. The parties do not waive any objections to the 19 admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial. 20 2. The parties will designate the Confidential documents as confidential by affixing a mark 21 labelling them “Confidential.” 22 3. The Confidential documents may only be disclosed to the following: 23 a. Plaintiffs, Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of the Law Office of Mark E. 24 Merin, and any partners and associates in that office; 25 b. Defendants, Carl L. Fessenden and Suli A. Mastorakos of Porter Scott, and any 26 partners and associates in that office; 27 c.

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. 2025).

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)