Evans v. Clark County School District

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 8, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-02171·Unknown

Opinion

1 LEX TECNICA LTD ADAM R. KNECHT, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 13166 VINCENT J. GARRIDO, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 15918 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 adam@lextecnica.com 5 vince@lextecnica.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * CANDRA EVANS, individually and as CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-02171-JAD-VCF 9 parent to R.E., TERRELL EVANS, individually and as parent to R.E., 10 STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY Plaintiffs, AGREEMENT AND [PROPOSED] 11 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER

12 KELLY HAWES, JOSHUA HAGER, SCOTT WALKER, JESUS JARA, CLARK 13 COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES 1 through 100; ROE ENTITIES 11 through 14 200, inclusive,

15 Defendants.

16 Pursuant to FRCP 26(c), the Stipulation contained herein sets forth the mutual terms of 17 confidentiality by and among Plaintiffs Candra Evans, Terrell Evans, individually and as parents 18 to R.E. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record; and, 19 Defendant(s), Kelly Hawes’ (“Hawes”), Joshua Hager’s (“Hager”), Scott Walker’s (“Walker”), 20 and Clark County School District’s (“CCSD”) (referred collectively herein as the “CCSD 21 Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record. Based on the foregoing, the 22 Court finds as follows: 23 1. The Parties (defined further herein) anticipate that disclosure and discovery 24 activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential or private information for 1 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 2 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Additionally, the Parties recognize that this action 3 has and likely will continue to garner attention from the public and requests from the media, press, 4 and journalists for public comment. As such, this Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and 5 Protective Order is designed to protect statutorily protected information from public disclosure. 6 Accordingly, the Parties hereby jointly stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 7 Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”). 8 2. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 9 disclosures or responses to discovery, or any categories of information not specifically addressed

10 herein, and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 11 information or items that are entitled to CONFIDENTIAL treatment under the applicable law or 12 regulation and designated “CONFIDENTIAL” as described herein. The parties further 13 acknowledge, as set forth further below, that this Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and 14 Protective Order does not entitle them to file CONFIDENTIAL information under seal or 15 otherwise change Federal or Local rules, procedures, and standards to be applied when a party 16 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. The parties expressly covenant, agree 17 and acknowledge that R.E.’s name and personal identifiable information are CONFIDENTIAL 18 and will be treated as such by all parties and will not be disclosed to any third parties, not under

19 the direct control of an applicable party’s attorneys pursuant to the terms identified herein. 20 3. As used within this Order, the words set forth below shall have the following 21 meanings: 22 a. “Litigation” or “Proceeding” shall mean the above-captioned case, filed 23 in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, bearing Case Number 2:22-cv- 24 02171-JAD-VCF. 1 b. “Documents” or “Information” shall mean and include any documents 2 (whether in hard copy or electronic form), records, correspondence, analyses, 3 assessments, statements (financial or otherwise), responses to discovery, tangible articles 4 or things, whether documentary or oral, and other information provided, served, disclosed, 5 filed, or produced, whether voluntarily or through discovery or other means, in connection 6 with this Litigation. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the 7 meaning of these terms. 8 c. “Party” or “Parties” shall mean one party (or all parties) in this Litigation, 9 and their in-house and outside counsel.

10 d. “Producing Party” shall mean any person or entity who provides, serves, 11 discloses, files, or produces any Documents or Information. 12 e. “Receiving Party” shall mean any person or entity who receives any such 13 Documents or Information. 14 f. “Court” means the District Court, District of Nevada, and any judicial 15 officer, judge, or magistrate assigned thereto, or any other judge or magistrate to which 16 the Litigation may be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings. 17 g. “Confidential” means any documents, testimony, or information which a 18 Designating Party believes in good faith contains or reveals confidential trade secrets,

19 proprietary business information, or nonpublic personal, client, or employee information. 20 h. “Confidential Materials” means any documents, testimony, or information, 21 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the provisions of this Order. 22 i. “Designating Party” means the Party or non-party that designates 23 documents, testimony, or information as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 /// 1 4. The privacy of students is protected under federal law whether they are parties to 2 the Litigation or not. As a school district that receives federal funding, CCSD is bound by the 3 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and is not at liberty to disclose personally 4 identifying information of its students without written consent of the parents, or a court order. 5 The Parties acknowledge that information that could be reasonably likely to lead to admissible 6 evidence in this Litigation could contain information that is protected by FERPA. 7 In addition, personnel files of state government employees involved in an incident may 8 be deemed private in nature. As a result, their use may be limited to protect the individuals’ 9 fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments

10 of the U.S. Constitution. See, El Dorado Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento 11 County, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (1987). Accordingly, the Parties agree that, in conjunction with 12 discovery proceedings in this Litigation, the Parties may designate any Document, thing, material, 13 testimony, or other Information derived therefrom, which is entitled to confidential treatment 14 under applicable legal principles, as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of this Confidentiality 15 Agreement and Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”), and that anything designated as such will 16 be produced to the requesting party without redaction, but shall not be provided or made available 17 to third parties except as permitted by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law or this Order. 18 Confidential information includes information that qualifies for confidential treatment under

19 applicable legal principles, which may include information contained in personnel files of CCSD 20 employees and/or information that has not been made public and contains trade secret, proprietary 21 and/or sensitive business or personal information, and/or any (personal) information about 22 students that is protected by FERPA. 23 If information is protected under FERPA, until the information is released in an 24 unredacted format with a Court order, CCSD agrees to produce a redacted version of all such 1 information in a format that redacts the identity and PII of the applicable third-party.

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

Evans v. Clark County School District, (D. Nev. 2023).

Evans v. Clark County School District (Evans v. Clark County School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court
190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)