Jamee Deirdre Hundley (AKA James Derrick Hundley) v. Aranas

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 9, 2024·No. 3:19-cv-00458·Unknown

Opinion

1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 2) MCLETCHIE LAW 602 South Tenth Street 3 | |Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 4 Telephone: (702) 728-5300 Fax: (702) 425-8220 5 | |Email: efile@nvlitigation.com ‘ Counsel for Plaintiff Jamee Deirdre Hundley DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 JAMEE DEIRDRE HUNDLEY, aka Case. No.: 3:19-cv-00458-ART-CSD 9 | | JAMES DERRICK HUNDLEY Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 VS. 12 = 13||STATE OF NEVADA ex. Rel, BOARD OF PRISON COMMISSIONERS, et al.

15 Defendants. ArSZ 16 Plaintiff JAMME DEIRDRE HUNDLEY, fka JAMES DERRICK HUNDLEY = 17 (“Plaintiff Hundley” or “Ms. Hundley’”)', by and through her counsel, Margaret A. 18 /McLetchie and Leo S. Wolpert of McLetchie Law, and Defendants Kim Adamson, Cisco 19 Aguilar, Romeo Aranas, David Bequette, Russelle Donnelly, James Dzurenda, Aaron Ford, 20) Tim Garrett, David Greene, Joseph Lombardo, Dana Marks, Michael Minev, Martin 21 Naughton, Donald Poag, and David Rivas, by and through their counsel, Aaron D. Ford, 22 Attorney General of the State of Nevada, and Douglas R. Rands, Senior Deputy Attorney 23 | |General (“NDOC Defendants”) (collectively “the Parties”), in accordance with Rule 26 of 24 | |the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with Rule 26-1 of the Local Rules of the United States 25 | |District Court, District of Nevada, having agreed to the following and for good cause under 26 | |Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 271 follows: 28 | | ' Plaintiff is referred to herein by her female name and pronouns.

1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of 3 | |confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 | |disclosure may be warranted under Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5| |The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 6 | |disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends to only the 7 {limited information or items that are entitled under law to treatment as confidential. 8 2. SCOPE. 9 All documents produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery 10 | |requests, and all deposition testimony and exhibits and any other materials which may be 11 | |subject to discovery (hereinafter collectively “Discovery Material”) shall be subject to this 12 | |stipulated protective order concerning confidential information as set forth below. A copy 13 | |of this Order must be included with any subpoena to any third party. Any party, or any third zen 14 | |party who produces documents in this litigation, may designate documents as Confidential 15 | |but only after review of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined 16 | |that the documents contain “Confidential Information,” as defined below, and pursuant to 17 | |the procedure set forth below. 18 3. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 19 “Confidential Information” shall mean information meriting special protection 20 junder the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law. Confidential Information does not include information that (a) is in the public domain at the time of 22 | |disclosure; (b) becomes part of the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; 23 | |(c) the Receiving Party can show was in its rightful and lawful possession at the time of 24 | |disclosure; or (d) the Receiving Party lawfully receives from a Non-party later without 25 | |restriction as to disclosure. 26 4. OTHER DEFINITIONS. 27 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, agents, and 28 | |attorney(s) of record for a Party in this action (including their associates, paralegals, and

1 | |support/ clerical staff). 2 Non-party: any individual, corporation, association, or natural person or entity 3 Jother than a party. 4 Protected Material: any Discovery Material containing Confidential Information 5 | |that is designated by a Party or Non-party as “CONFIDENTIAL,” unless the Receiving 6 | |Party challenges the confidentiality designation and (a) the Court decides such material is 7 | |not entitled to protection as confidential; (b) the Designating Party fails to apply the Court 8 | | for an order designating the material confidential within the time period specified below; or 9 | |(c) the Designating Party withdraws its confidentiality designation in writing. 10 Producing Party: a Party or Non-party that produces Discovery Material in this 11 Jaction. 12 Receiving Party: a Party that recetves Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 13 Designating Party: a Party or Non-party that designates Discovery Material as 58 14 | |“CONFIDENTIAL”. The Party or Non-party designating information or items as Protected 15 | |Material bears the burden of establishing good cause for the confidentiality of all such items. 16 Challenging Party: a party that elects to initiate a challenge to a Designating 17 | |Party’s confidentiality designation. 18 Confidentiality Log: a Confidentiality Log must accompany any production of 19 | |documents designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” that includes the Bates numbers of the 20 | |documents designated (or the portions thereof) as “Confidential” and the basis for doing so. Each Producing Party shall keep this log cumulatively and re-produce it every time they 22 | |designate something as “CONFIDENTIAL” so that it is a cumulative record of what the 23 | |party has marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 5. FORM AND TIMING OF DESIGNATION. 25 Protected Material shall be so designated by the Producing Party by placing or 26 | |affixing the word “CONFIDENTIAL” on the document in a manner which will not interfere with the legibility of the document and which will permit complete removal of the 28 | |“Confidential” designation. A Confidentiality Log must accompany any production of

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

Jamee Deirdre Hundley (AKA James Derrick Hundley) v. Aranas, (D. Nev. 2024).

Jamee Deirdre Hundley (AKA James Derrick Hundley) v. Aranas (Jamee Deirdre Hundley (AKA James Derrick Hundley) v. Aranas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)