Hrones v. Rideout Memorial Hospital

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 28, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00449·Unknown

Opinion

Candice T. Zee, Bar No. 227453 czee@vedderprice.com Grace L. Urban, pro hac vice gurban@vedderprice.com 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90067 T: +1 424 204 7700 F: +1 424 204 7702 Attorneys for Defendant ADVENTIST HEALTH AND RIDEOUT

Mark E. Ellis, Bar No. 127159 mellis@ellislawgroup.com Anthony P.J. Valenti, Bar No. 284542 avalenti@ellislawgroup.com 1425 River Park Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95815 T: +1 916 283 8820 F: +1 916 283 8821

Attorneys for Plaintiff GLENDA HRONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION GLENDA HRONES, Case No. 2:20-CV-0449-KJM-KJN Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. Judge: Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller RIDEOUT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DBA Magistrate: Judge Kendall J. Newman ADVENTIST HEALTH AND RIDEOUT, and DOES 1 through 10, Trial Date: None Set Date Action Filed: February 27, 2020 Defendant.

1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is 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, Plaintiff Glenda Hrones and Defendant Rideout Memorial Hospital d/b/a Adventist Health and Rideout (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 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 12.3, below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller’s Standing Order and Local Rule 141 set 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. This action is likely to involve proprietary and confidential personnel information, medical information, and other financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, including but not limited to information regarding confidential business practices or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties, including but not limited to, personnel information and health information), and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 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 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 case. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Glenda Hrones v. Rideout Memorial Hospital d/b/a Adventist Health & Rideout, Case No. 2:20-CV-0449-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.). 2.2 Court: Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, or any other judge to which this Action may be assigned, including the Court staff participating in such proceedings. 2.3 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.4 “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. CONFIDENTIAL information includes any documents, testimony or information that the Designating Party in good faith believes to contain non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law, including HIPAA. 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.6 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 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” 2.7 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. 2.8 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. 2.9 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL information includes Confidential Information or Items that the Designating Party in good faith believes contains trade secrets, confidential, and/or proprietary information of the most sensitive nature, including, without limitation, documents pertaining to confidential litigation matters unrelated to Plaintiff and/or information that qualifies for protection pursuant to HIPAA. 2.10 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. 2.11 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.12 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, and includes support staff. 2.13 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). 2.14 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.15 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. 2.16 Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.17 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 2.18 HIPAA: the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. 2.19 Information: the content of 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order co

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

Hrones v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Hrones v. Rideout Memorial Hospital (Hrones v. Rideout Memorial Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.