Jones v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 29, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01972·Unknown

Opinion

1/PORTER | SCOTT 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 3, || cfessenden@porterscott.com Cruz Rocha, SBN 279293 4 || crocha@porterscott.com 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 5 Sacramento, California 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481 6 |] FAX: 916.927.3706 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 || COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, TYLER MASTERSON, and CONNOR VALENCIA 9 Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 || LERON JONES, an individual, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1972 TLN AC 14 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES Vv. 16 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, TYLER FAC: 12/12/24 17 || MASTERSON (Badge #1236); CONNOR Complaint Filed: 7/18/24 18 VALENCIA (Badge #1009); and DOES 3 THROUGH 100, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 / 21 22 STIPULATION 93 ||A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION The Parties believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 25 section C of this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which 26 || protection from public disclosure would be warranted. Plaintiff has not been permitted to view the 27 || materials described in this stipulated protective order. The Parties acknowledge that this protective order 28 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or discovery activity, and that the protection it

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PERSONNEL FILES

1 affords extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to such protection under Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Parties further acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does 3 not entitle any party to file information designated as protected or confidential under seal, where Local 4 Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied 5 when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 6 The Parties jointly request entry of this proposed Stipulated Protective Order to limit the 7 disclosure, dissemination, and use of certain identified categories of confidential information. 8 B. DEFINITIONS 9 The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 10 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now 11 or later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action 12 consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 13 2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendant 14 designate as “Confidential” and described in section C. 15 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 16 stipulated protective order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is 17 determined in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information 19 shall be used solely for purposes of litigation. Confidential information shall not be used by the non- 20 designating party for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all parties to this 21 action or as authorized by further order of the Court. 22 4. “Defendants” shall mean the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, TYLER MASTERSON, 23 CONNOR VALENCIA and any other Defendant that may subsequently be added to this action (for 24 example, “DOE 1 to 100, inclusive”). 25 5. “Plaintiff” shall mean LERON JONES. 26 6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiff and Defendants, identified above. 27 C. INFORMATION COVERED 28 Covered Information: 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under 2 this stipulated protective order is limited to the following: 3 1. Personnel files of Defendant CONNOR VALENCIA, including any documents related to 4 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations of complaints, and imposition of discipline. 5 2. Personnel files of Defendant TYLER MASTERSON, including any documents related to 6 investigation of conduct, complaints or investigations of complaints, and imposition of discipline. 7 3. Personnel files of any deputy or employee of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office or 8 the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, including any documents related to investigation of conduct, 9 complaints or investigations of complaints, and imposition of discipline. 10 4. Sensitive financial information of any Party, including bank statements, credit card 11 statements, tax returns, investment records, assets, and liabilities. 12 Particularized Need for Protection: 13 Pursuant to Local Rule141.1(c)(2), the Parties assert that there exists a specific, particularized 14 need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. In good faith, the 15 Parties represent to the Court that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated protective 16 order are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 26(c), and does not include information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, 18 e.g., In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). 19 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 20 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order is for 21 the convenience of Parties and the Court. The Parties seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of 22 resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the Parties and the Court from 24 conducting the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection, in favor of a 25 procedure whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendant’s good faith representations 26 of the need for protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 27 1986) (“[T]he burden of justifying the confidentiality of each and every document sought to be covered 28 by a protective order remains on the party seeking the protective order; any other conclusion would turn 1 Rule 26(c) on its head.”). As a result, production may be made with this stipulated protective order in 2 place and, if necessary, it will permit discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for 3 protection. 4 D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 5 Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” and produced 6 subject to this stipulated protective order: 7 1. The Confidential documents shall be used solely in connection with the above-captioned 8 civil case, and in the preparation and trial of the case. The parties do not waive any objections to the 9 admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial. 10 2. The parties will designate the Confidential documents as confidential by affixing a mark 11 labelling them “Confidential.” 12 3. The Confidential documents may only be disclosed to the following persons: 13 a. Plaintiff, Johnny L. Griffin, III and Manolo H. Olaso of the Law Offices of Johnny L. 14 Griffin III, and any partners and associates in that office; 15 b. Defendant, Carl L. Fessenden and Cruz Rocha of Porter Scott, and any partners 16 and associates in that office; 17 c.

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

Jones v. County of Sacramento, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Jones v. County of Sacramento (Jones 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)