Guzman v. Jones

District Court, N.D. California·Decided May 12, 2023·No. 4:19-cv-03757-HSG·Unknown

Opinion

Daniel S. Bitton (SBN 320296) ROB BONTA dbitton@axinn.com Attorney General of California Jason T. Murata (SBN 319287) PREETI K. BAJWA jmurata@axinn.com Supervising Deputy Attorney General Patrick Doyle (SBN 329810) Preeti.Bajwa@doj.ca.gov pdoyle@axinn.com PETER B. NICHOLS, State Bar No. 289706 Neelesh T. Moorthy (SBN 341155) Deputy Attorney General nmoorthy@axinn.com Ben.Nichols@doj.ca.gov Darpan R. Singh (SBN 347052) 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 dsingh@axinn.com San Diego, CA 92101 Isabella L. Solórzano (SBN 345703) P.O. Box 85266 isolorzano@axinn.com San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 321-5789 AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 55 Second Street, 20th Floor Fax: (619) 645-2581 E-mail: Ben.Nichols@doj.ca.gov San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.490.2000 Attorneys for Defendants Facsimile: 415.490.2001 T. Boerum and D. Dorsey

Attorneys for Plaintiff Mayito Guzman

MAYITO GUZMAN Case No. 4:19-cv-03757-HSG Plaintiff, v. PROTECTIVE ORDER D. DORSEY, ET AL. Defendant.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve materials, which concerns or relates to the processes, operations, or work of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its employees and agents (collectively “CDCR”), the disclosure of which may have the effect of causing harm or endangering the safety of CDCR staff, inmates, or third persons. Additionally, Plaintiff is a former CDCR inmate, and Defendants contend that providing him access to certain sensitive information creates safety and security concerns. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among other things, information about confidential informants, prison procedures for investigating staff accused of misconduct, prison procedures for investigating inmates accused of misconduct, and other information that is only available to staff on a need-to- know basis, not provided to inmates, and which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as CONFIDENTIAL or CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 3.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 3.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 3.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 3.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 3.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 3.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). Material in this action. 3.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 3.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 3.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3.15 CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. Additionally, the information concerns CDCR’s internal affairs, investigatory tactics, and third parties which is not provided to inmates for safety and security reasons. Thus, information designated Attorneys’ Eyes Only, shall only be disclosed as delineated in paragraph 8.3. 4. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b)

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

Guzman v. Jones, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Guzman v. Jones (Guzman v. Jones) — 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)