Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 4, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-01722·Unknown

Opinion

1 MICHAEL J. HADDAD (SBN 189114) JULIA SHERWIN (SBN 189268) 2 MAYA RODRIGUEZ SORENSEN (SBN 250722) TERESA ALLEN (SBN 264865) 3 HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP 4 505 Seventeenth Street Oakland, CA 94612 5 Telephone: (510) 452-5500 Facsimile: (510) 452-5510 6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff KATHERINE JOHNSON 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RANDALL SCOTT JOHNSON, DECEASED, by ) and through his Successor in Interest, KATHERINE ) 12 JOHNSON, KATHERINE JOHNSON, Individually, ) ) 13 Plaintiff, ) No. 2:19-cv-01722-JAM-DB ) vs. 14 ) ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 CITY OF REDDING, a public entity; REDDING ) ORDER PURSUANT TO CIVIL POLICE CHIEF ROGER MOORE; REDDING ) LOCAL RULE 141.1 16 POLICE OFFICER DARREN HULL; REDDING ) POLICE OFFICER TREVOR KUYPER; SHASTA ) 17 COUNTY, a public entity; SHASTA COUNTY ) SHERIFF-CORONER TOM BOSENKO, in his ) 18 individual and official capacities; SHASTA ) 19 C SEO RU GN ET AY N J TA BIL . RC OA DP GT EA RIN S; D DA EV PUE TK YE NT; ) ) ) 20 MCQUILLAN; DEPUTY WYATT MASON; ) DEPUTY JOSHUA DORSTAD; CALIFORNIA 21 FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, ) ) 22 INCORPORATED, a California corporation; DOE ) Defendant 1; KERI RUBALCAVA, R.N.; ) 23 AMANDA REAM, R.N.; LINDA SMITH, R.N.; ) JOHN MAIKE, Psychiatric R.N.; CYNTHIA ) 24 COLLINS, L.V.N.; SHELBY CALLAHAN, L.V.N.; ) DEBORAH SAEGER, MFT, and DOES 2–20; ) 25 individually, jointly, and severally, ) )

26 ) ) 27 Defendants. ) 1 The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to the 2 following protective order being issued in this matter: 3 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, 5 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 6 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties 7 hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The 8 parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses 9 to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 10 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 11 principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 12 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 13 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 14 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 2. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or 17 items under this Order. 18 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 19 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 26(c), and for which public disclosure is likely to result in particularized harm or 21 violate privacy interests recognized by law. This information may include: 22 a. personnel file records of any peace officer; 23 b. medical records; 24 c. social security numbers and similar sensitive identifying information (unless 25 redacted by order or by agreement of all parties). 26 Except by stipulation or order based on good cause, this information may not include 27 investigation of the subject incident(s), specifically the incident involving Decedent Randall 1 Johnson on or about August 14, 2018 through August 16, 2018. 2 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 3 their support staff). 4 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 5 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 6 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 7 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 8 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 9 discovery in this matter. 10 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 11 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 12 consultant in this action. 13 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel 14 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 15 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 16 entity not named as a Party to this action. 17 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action 18 but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf 19 of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 20 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 21 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 22 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material 23 in this action. 24 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., 25 photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, 26 or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 27 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 1 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 3 Producing Party. 4 3. SCOPE 5 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as 6 defined above), but also (1) any information copied from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, 7 summaries, or compilations of Protected Material that reveal the source of the Protected Material or 8 that reveal specific information entitled to confidentiality as a matter of law; and (3) any testimony, 9 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 10 However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following 11 information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving 12 Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of 13 publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record 14 through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the 15 disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the 16 information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party; (c) any 17 information mentioned or referenced in a deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, unless 18 such portions of testimony have been designated as confidential pursuant to section 5.2 (b) of this 19 order. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 20 4. DURATION 21 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 22 Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order 23 otherwise directs.

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

Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. (Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, 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)