Estate of Joshua Garbutt v. County of Trinity

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMarch 3, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01275
StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Joshua Garbutt v. County of Trinity (Estate of Joshua Garbutt v. County of Trinity) 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 Joshua Garbutt v. County of Trinity, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849) Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805) 2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 3 Sacramento, California 95814 4 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336 5 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com paul@markmerin.com 6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF JOSHUA GARBUTT, 8 STACY POHLMEYER, and BRIAN GARBUTT 9 Gregory B. Thomas (SBN 239870) 10 E-mail: gthomas@bwslaw.com 11 Jackson D. Morgus (SBN 318453) E-mail: jmorgus@bwslaw.com 12 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1650 13 Oakland, California 94612-3520 Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: 510.839.9104 14

15 Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF TRINITY, TRINITY COUNTY 16 SHERIFF’S OFFICE, TIM SAXON, DOUGLAS CRAIG, MICHAEL NOVAK, 17 MAX MUCKLOW, MICHAEL WOODSON, MARK BAUMAN, MICHAEL COINER- 18 WILSON, NICHOLAS MARTINELLI, 19 NICHOLAS RUCKER, and DOMINQUE CALLAWAY 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 22 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 23 ESTATE OF JOSHUA GARBUTT, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01275-DMC 24 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 25 RE: INTERNAL AFFAIRS REPORT; vs. 26 ORDER COUNTY OF TRINITY, et al., 27 Defendants. 28 1 STIPULATION 2 The Estate of Joshua Garbutt, Stacy Pohlmeyer, and Brian Garbutt (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and 3 the County of Trinity, Trinity County Sheriff’s Office, Tim Saxon, Douglas Craig, Michael Novak, Max 4 Mucklow, Michael Woodson, Mark Bauman, Michael Coiner-Wilson, Nicholas Martinelli, Nicholas 5 Rucker, and Dominque Callaway (collectively, “Defendants”) stipulate to the following. 6 A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION 7 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 8 in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from 9 public disclosure would be warranted. Plaintiffs have not been permitted to view the materials described 10 in this stipulated protective order and, thus, are unable to form an opinion as to whether protection is 11 appropriate. The Parties acknowledge that this protective order does not confer blanket protections on all 12 disclosures or discovery activity, and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information 13 or items that are entitled to such protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Parties 14 further acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does not entitle any party to file information 15 designated as protected or confidential under seal, where Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that 16 must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 17 Court to file material under seal. 18 B. DEFINITIONS 19 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 20 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 21 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action 22 consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 23 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendants 24 designate as “Confidential” and described in Section C. 25 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 26 stipulated protective order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined 27 in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection pursuant to 28 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information shall be 1 used solely for purposes of litigation. Such Confidential information may be disclosed only to the 2 categories of persons and under the conditions described in this Order. Confidential information shall not 3 be used by the non-designating party for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all 4 parties to this action or as authorized by further order of the Court. 5 4. “Plaintiffs” shall mean the Estate of Joshua Garbutt, Stacy Pohlmeyer, and Brian Garbutt. 6 5. “Defendants” shall mean the County of Trinity, Trinity County Sheriff’s Office, Tim 7 Saxon, Douglas Craig, Michael Novak, Max Mucklow, Michael Woodson, Mark Bauman, Michael 8 Coiner-Wilson, Nicholas Martinelli, Nicholas Rucker, and Dominque Callaway. 9 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants, collectively, as identified above. 10 C. INFORMATION COVERED 11 Covered Information: 12 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under 13 this stipulated protective order is limited to the following (except to the extent that the information is 14 otherwise available to the public or subject to disclosure, including pursuant to California Penal Code § 15 832.7): 16 1. The Trinity County Sheriff’s Office’s internal affairs (“IA”) report relating to the in- 17 custody death Joshua Garbutt. 18 Particularized Need for Protection: 19 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, particularized 20 need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. Defendants represent 21 to the Court and Plaintiffs that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated protective order 22 are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 26(c), and does not include information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re 24 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). 25 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 26 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order is for 27 the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of 28 resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the Parties and the Court from conducting 2 the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection, in favor of a procedure 3 whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants’ good faith representations of the need 4 for protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986) (“[T]he 5 burden of justifying the confidentiality of each and every document sought to be covered by a protective 6 order remains on the party seeking the protective order; any other conclusion would turn Rule 26(c) on 7 its head.”). As a result, production may be made with this stipulated protective order in place and, if 8 necessary, it will permit discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for protection. 9 D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 10 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” and produced 11 subject to this stipulated protective order: 12 1. The Parties will designate the Confidential documents as confidential by affixing a mark 13 labelling them “Confidential.” 14 2. The Confidential documents may only be disclosed to the following persons: 15 a. Plaintiffs, Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of the Law Office of Mark E. 16 Merin, and any partners and associates in that office; 17 b. Defendants, and Gregory B. Thomas and Jackson 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 Joshua Garbutt v. County of Trinity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-joshua-garbutt-v-county-of-trinity-caed-2025.