Evans v. Valley Electric Association, Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 11, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-00986·Unknown

Opinion

Shannon S. Pierce, NV Bar No. 12471 Wade Beavers, NV Bar No. 13451 7800 Rancharrah Parkway Reno, Nevada 89511 Telephone: (775) 788-2200 Facsimile: (775) 786-5000 Email: spierce@fennmorelaw.com; wbeavers@fennemorelaw.com Attorneys for Valley Electric Association, Inc. ANGELA EVANS. an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-00986-RFB-VCF Plaintiff, vs. VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.; DOES I through X; and ROE Corporations XI through XX, inclusive, Defendants. ANGELA EVANS, Case No. :2:20-cv-01919-RFB-VCF Plaintiff, vs. STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY NYE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, a political AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE subdivision of the State of Nevada; DAVID ORDER BORUCHOWITZ, individually, Defendants. ANGELA EVANS (“Evans”), VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. (“Valley Electric”); NYE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (“NCSO”), and DAVID BORUCHOWITZ (collectively, the “Parties,” and each a “Party”), by and through their respective counsel, submit the following proposed stipulated protective order (the “Stipulated Protective Order”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), for entry in the cases of Angela Evans v. Valley Electric Association, Inc., Case No. 2:20-CV-00986-RFB-VCF (“00986 Case”), and Angela Evans v. Nye County Sheriff’s Office, et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-01919-RFB-VCF (“01919 Case,” and together with the 00986 Cases, the “Actions”), which have been coordinated for discovery pursuant to the order of the Magistrate Judge. See ECF No. 38 in 00986 Case. Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from disclosure may be warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). To promote the exchange of discovery in further litigation of the Actions, the Parties now request that the following proposed Stipulated Protective Order be approved by this Court before certain information and documents are produced. The Parties acknowledge that the proposed Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends to only the limited information or items that are entitled under law to treatment as confidential. 1. Scope All documents produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery requests, and all deposition testimony and exhibits and any other materials which may be subject to discovery (hereinafter collectively “Discovery Material”) may, as set forth below, be subject to this stipulated protective order concerning confidential information as set forth below. Any party, or any third party who produces documents in this litigation, may designate documents as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential,” but only after review of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined that the documents contain “Confidential Information,” as defined below, and pursuant to the procedure set forth below. 2. Definition of Confidential Information As used herein: a. “Confidential Information” shall mean all information (regardless of how generated, stored, or maintained), material, tangible things, or testimony that qualify for protection under standards developed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, produced by or disclosed to a Received party by a Producing party that the Producing party or a Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Producing party and which has been so designated by the Producing party or Designating party. Such information, material, tangible things, or testimony may include, but is not limited to, trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information, technical information, customer information, confidential information relating to employees, vendor information, financial information, sales data, business plans and strategies, agreements and communications, or other information the disclosure of which the Producing party or the Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Producing party or the disclosure of which would otherwise be detrimental to the conduct of the Producing party’s business or the business of any of the Producing party’s customers or clients. Extracts and summaries of Confidential Information shall also be treated as confidential. The following are examples of information that is not Confidential Information: i. published advertising materials; ii. any information that is, or, after its disclosure to a Receiving party, becomes part of the public domain as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Stipulated Protective Order; iii. information that the Receiving party can show by written records was already known to it prior to the disclosure, provided that it was either (i) received from the Producing party and was not received under an express or implied obligation of confidentiality to the Producing party, or (ii) received from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no express or implied obligation of confidentiality to the Producing party; iv. any information that the Receiving party can show by written records was received by it after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no express or implied obligation of confidentiality to the Producing party; and v. any information that the Receiving party can show was independently developed by it after the time of disclosure by personnel who did not have access to the Producing party’s Confidential Information. b. “Attorney Eyes Only Information” shall mean all Confidential Information that, consistent with the terms and conditions below, the Producing party or Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be so sensitive that its dissemination deserves further limitation by preventing the disclosure thereof to the Receiving party. As such, Attorney Eyes Only Information shall only be disclosed to the Receiving party’s counsel and persons identified in Paragraph II(4)(b) herein below, but shall not be disclosed to the Receiving party. Attorney Eyes Only Information is a subset of Confidential Information, and shall be treated as Confidential Information, except as specifically stated otherwise hereinbelow. The Attorney Eyes Only Information designation shall apply only as to documents and information disclosed to Defendants Nye County Sheriff’s Office and Defendant Boruchowitz. Documents and information shall not be designated Attorney Eyes Only Information as to any other party in this action. For the avoidance of doubt, if a document is designated as Attorney Eyes Only Information as to Defendant Nye County Sheriff’s Office and Defendant Boruchowitz, the disclosing party may designate the same document as Confidential Information as to all other parties. c. “Producing party” shall mean any Party to this action or any non-party to this action producing Confidential Information in connection with depositions, document production or otherwise, or the party asserting the confidentiality privilege, as the case may be. d. “Receiving party” shall mean any Party to this action or any non-party to this action receiving Confidential Information in connection with depositions, document production or otherwise in this action. e. “Designating party” shall mean any party to either of the Actions or any Producing party that designated the Confidential Information as “confidential” by notation on the document, statement on the record of the deposition, written advice to the respective undersigned counsel for

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

Evans v. Valley Electric Association, Inc., (D. Nev. 2021).

Evans v. Valley Electric Association, Inc. (Evans v. Valley Electric Association, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety
137 S. Ct. 38 (Supreme Court, 2016)