Garcia v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 12, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-00899·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALVADOR GARCIA JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-0899-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED 13 y STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 27) 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 18 || 27), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See 19 | L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following 20 | clarification. The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not 21 | retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that 22 | action.” L.R. 141.1(f); see MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 WL 495778 23 | (E.D. Cal., Feb. 03, 2017) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain 24 | jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the 25 | Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. 26 || Dated: June 12, 2024 UG $ 27 CHISOO KIM 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 PORTER SCOTT LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN Mark E. Merin, SBN 043849 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION mark@markmerin.com Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 Paul H. Masuhara, SBN 289805 3 cfessenden@porterscott.com l@markmerin.com Suli A. Mastorakos, SBN 330383 paul@markmerin.com 4 smastorakos@porterscott.com 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Matthew R. Mendoza, SBN 344482 Sacramento, CA 95814 5 mmendoza@porterscott.com TEL: 916.443.6911 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 FAX: 916.447.8336 6 Sacramento, California 95815 7 || TEL: 916.929.1481 Attorneys for Plaintiff FAX: 916.927.3706 SALVADOR GARCIA JR. 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 10 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES, DYLAN 11 BLACK, ROYCE AUSTIN, and DARIO BARRON 12 Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 || SALVADOR GARCIA, JR., CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00899-DAD-CSK 18 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; 19 [PROPOSED] ORDER Vv. 20 FAC Filed: 12/08/2023 Complaint Filed: 05/12/2023 21 || COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 2 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES, DOE 1, 23 |} and DOE 2, 24 Defendants. 25 / 26 STIPULATION 27 || A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION 28 Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described

I STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1 in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from 2 public disclosure would be warranted. Plaintiff has not been permitted to view the materials described in 3 this stipulated protective order. The parties acknowledge that this protective order does not confer blanket 4 protections on all disclosures or discovery activity, and that the protection it affords extends only to the 5 limited information or items that are entitled to such protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 26(c). The parties further acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does not entitle any party to 7 file information designated as protected or confidential under seal, where Local Rule 141 sets forth the 8 procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 9 permission from the Court to file material under seal. 10 B. DEFINITIONS 11 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 12 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 13 later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action consolidated 14 at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 15 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendants 16 designate as “Confidential” and described in section C. 17 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 18 stipulated protective order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined 19 in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection pursuant to 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information shall be used 21 solely for purposes of litigation. Confidential information shall not be used by the non-designating party 22 for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all parties to this action or as authorized 23 by further order of the Court. 24 4. “Defendants” shall mean the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY 25 SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, SCOTT JONES, DYLAN BLACK, ROYCE AUSTIN, and DARIO 26 BARRON. 27 5. “Plaintiff” shall mean SALVADOR GARCIA JR. 28 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiff and Defendants, identified above. 1 / / / 2 C. INFORMATION COVERED 3 Covered Information: 4 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under 5 this stipulated protective order is limited to the following: 6 1. Financial records of Dylan Black pertaining to his salary, assets, liabilities, and net worth (Bates 7 05213 – 05981). 8 a. Income Records 9 1. 2022 Pay Stubs (DEF 05213 – 05238) 10 2. 2023 Pay Stubs (DEF 05239 – 05264) 11 3. 2024 Pay Stubs (DEF 05265 – 05268) 12 b. Tax Returns 13 1. 2021 Tax Return (DEF 05269 – 05291) 14 2. 2022 Tax Return (DEF 05292 – 05343) 15 c. Loan Documents 16 1. Promissory Note, Solar, Car, Kubota (DEF 05344 – 05367) 17 2. 2022 – 2024 Fidelity Statements (DEF 05368 – 05471) 18 3. 2022 – 2024 Triad Monthly Statements (DEF 05472 – 05524) 19 4. Fidelity Loan (DEF 05525) 20 d. Bank Statements 21 1. Credit Card Statements (WF, Chase, Golden1) (DEF 05526 – 05538) 22 2. 2022 – 2024 Golden1 Bank Statements (DEF 05539 – 05664) 23 3. 2022 – 2024 Wells Fargo Bank Statements (DEF 05665 – 05898) 24 e. Home Documents 25 1. Contract, Landlord Waiver, Loan Signed (DEF 05899 – 05912) 26 f. LLC Information 27 1. LLC Authorization, Certificate (DEF 05913 – 05915) 28 2. Wells Fargo LLC Bank Statement (DEF 05916 – 05981) 1 2. Personnel Files of Dylan Black (Bates DEF 02957-02961, DEF 02965, DEF 02967-02974, DEF 2 02977-02988, DEF 02990-03000, 03002, DEF 03005-03006) 3 a. Employment Records 4 1. SCSD Department Seniority Determination Worksheet (DEF 02960) 5 2. State of CA DOJ Notice of Appointment (DEF 02965, 02977) 6 3. SCSD Employee Status/History – New Employee (DEF 02967) 7 4. New Employee Masterfile (DEF 02968) 8 5. State of CA DOJ Certificate of Application (DEF 02969) 9 6. Signed Compliance w/ Section 11166 of the Penal Code, Section 15630 of the Welfare 10 and Institutions Code (DEF 02978 – 02979) 11 7. County of Sacramento Employment Statement (DEF 02980) 12 8. Employee Self-Identification Questionnaire (DEF 02981) 13 9. Signed Statement Concerning Your Employment in a Job Not Covered by Social 14 Security (DEF 02982) 15 10. Signed Waiver and Acknowledgement – appointment to Deputy Sheriff On Call (DEF 16 02983) 17 11. County of Sacramento Inter-Departmental Correspondence RE Sheriff’s Training 18 Officer Appointment (DEF 02984) 19 12. Signed Oath (DEF 02992) 20 13. Subpoena Assignment Receipt (DEF 02993) 21 14. Madeira Group International Authorization to Release Information and Documents 22 (DEF 02994 – 02995) 23 15. SCSD Incentive Pay Request for REP Units 003 & 029 (DEF 02996) 24 b. Evaluations/Awards 25 1. SCSD Reply to Inmate Grievance/Suggestion (DEF 02957 – 02958) 26 2. SCSD Reserve Deputy Sherif Evaluation (DEF 02959, 03006) 27 3.

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

Garcia v. County of Sacramento, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Garcia v. County of Sacramento (Garcia v. County of Sacramento) — 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)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
785 F.2d 1108 (Third Circuit, 1986)