Estate of David Barefield Sr. v. City of Sacramento

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedDecember 20, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-03427
StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of David Barefield Sr. v. City of Sacramento (Estate of David Barefield Sr. v. City of Sacramento) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of David Barefield Sr. v. City of Sacramento, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1|IPORTER SCOTT 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 3 || clessenden @porterscott.com Cruz Rocha, SBN 279293 4 || crocha@porterscott.com 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 5 Sacramento, California 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 6 |] 916.927.3706 7 || Attorney for Defendants 8 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, JIM COOPER, and JAMES EDDINS 9 Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 10 || Mark E. Merin Paul H. Masuhara 11 |) LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 12 Sacramento, CA 95814 13 mark @markmerin.com paul @markmerin.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., DAVID BAREFIELD II, AARON BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and LOIS BAREFIELD, 16 7 UNITED STATES OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP 20 DAVID BAREFIELD Il, AARON BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 21 || LOIS BAREFIELD, ORDER RE: VIDEO 22 Plaintiffs, 23 Complaint Filed: 12/10/2024 Vv. 24 5 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, KATHERINE 26 || LESTER, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 27 DEPARTMENT, JIM COOPER, JAMES 28 EDDINS, and DOE 1 to 20, fPROPOSED} STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

1 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 2 3 4 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 5 A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION 6 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 7 in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from 8 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. 9 Plaintiffs have not been permitted to view the materials described in this stipulated protective order. The 10 parties acknowledge that this protective order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 11 discovery activity, and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that 12 are entitled to such protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties further 13 acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does not entitle any party to file information designated 14 as protected or confidential under seal, where Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be 15 followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to 16 file material under seal. 17 B. DEFINITIONS 18 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 19 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 20 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action consolidated 21 at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 22 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendants 23 designate as “Confidential” and described in section C. 24 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 25 stipulated protective order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined 26 in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection pursuant to 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information shall be used 28 solely for purposes of litigation. Confidential information shall not be used by the non-designating party 1 for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all parties to this action or as authorized 2 by further order of the Court. 3 4. “Defendants” shall mean COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY 4 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, JIM COOPER, and JAMES EDDINS. 5 5. “Plaintiffs” shall mean ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., DAVID BAREFIELD II, 6 AARON BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and LOIS BAREFIELD. 7 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants, identified above. 8 C. INFORMATION COVERED 9 Covered Information: 10 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under 11 this stipulated protective order is limited to the following: 12 1. Redacted Body Worn Camera video from inside the jail depicting the matter which is the 13 subject of this litigation. 14 Particularized Need for Protection: 15 Pursuant to Local Rule141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, particularized 16 need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. Defendants represent 17 to the Court and Plaintiffs that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated protective order 18 are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), 19 and does not include information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re Roman 20 Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). 21 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 22 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order is for 23 the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of 24 resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the parties and the Court from conducting 26 the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection, in favor of a procedure whereby 27 presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants’ good faith representations of the need for 28 protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986) As a result, 1 production may be made with this stipulated protective order in place and, if necessary, it will permit 2 discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for protection. 3 D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” and produced 5 subject to this stipulated 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. The parties will designate the Confidential documents as confidential by affixing a mark 10 labelling them “Confidential” or otherwise specifically designating in writing visual media that is 11 protected. 12 3. The Confidential documents may only be disclosed to the following persons: 13 a. Plaintiffs and Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of the Law Office of Mark E. 14 Merin, and any partners and associates in that office; 15 b. Defendants and Carl L. Fessenden and Cruz Rocha of Porter Scott, and any partners 16 and associates in that office; 17 c. Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel or support staff regularly employed by 18 counsel referred to in subparts (a) and (b) immediately above, including stenographic deposition reporters 19 or videographers retained in connection with this action; 20 d.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Estate of David Barefield Sr. v. City of Sacramento, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-david-barefield-sr-v-city-of-sacramento-caed-2024.