Klep v. County of Siskiyou

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 5, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-00274·Unknown

Opinion

Patrick L. Deedon, State Bar No. 245490 Tracey A. Werner, State Bar No. 315876 2851 Park Marina Drive, Suite 300 Redding, California 96001-2813 (530) 246-6050 / 246-6060 (fax) pdeedon@maire-law.com twerner@maire-law.com

Attorney(s) for Defendants, CHRIS STOCK, and RICHARD EVANS Derick E. Konz, SBN 286902 Ashley Riser, SBN 320538 601 University Avenue, Suite 150 Sacramento, California 95825 Tel: (916) 564-6100 dkonz@akk-law.com ariser@akk-law.com

Attorney(s) for Defendants, CITY OF MT. SHASTA, WALTER MOORE, and JUAN CASANOVA Philip J. Kaplan, SBN 135735 3278 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 106 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 820-2874 Philipkaplanlaw@gmail.com Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs, RENEE KLEP and A.K. ///

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

RENEE KLEP, individually and as No. 2:23-cv-0274 WBS DB Successor-in-interest to DARIN KLEP, Decedent; A.K., a minor, by her guardian Ad Litem, RENEE KLEP, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIAL Plaintiff, INFORMATION vs. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU; CITY OF MT. SHASTA, a Municipal entity; CHRIS STOCK, an individual; RICHARD EVANS, an individual; WALTER MOORE, an individual; and JUAN CASANOVA, an individual,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

WHEREAS the Plaintiffs, RENEE KLEP and A.K., (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFFS”), and Defendants, COUNTY OF SISKIYOU, CITY OF MT. SHASTA, CHRIS STOCK, RICHARD EVANS, WALTER MOORE, and JUAN CASANOVA (hereinafter collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”), which hereinafter may be referred to collectively as the “PARTIES,” anticipate that during the course of litigation of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Action” or the “Action”), discovery may be necessary of information, documents, records, or matters which are protected, confidential, privileged, private, or otherwise sensitive (which categories or descriptors may hereafter be referred to collectively as “CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS”), and the PARTIES wish to preserve the protection of those materials while ensuring that discovery may be pursued with minimal delay or expense. THEREFORE, the PARTIES hereby stipulate and agree to the following terms of this STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER (hereinafter referred to as the “PROTECTIVE ORDER”), subject to approval by this Court. 1. SCOPE OF PROTECTIVE ORDER a. The protection of this PROTECTIVE ORDER may be invoked with respect to any documents, video, photographs, audio recordings, testimony, written responses, information, inspection, and things (collectively "MATERIALS") produced or created in this Action that contain CONFIDENTIAL information. As used herein, the term CONFIDENTIAL includes MATERIALS produced in any format, including hardcopy or electronic, that contain confidential information including, but not limited to: documents protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act of 1974 (U.S. Public Law 93-579; documents codified at 5 U.S.C. §552a (2018)); documents exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (codified at 5 U.S.C. §552); documents which may be redacted pursuant to California Government Code section 7927.700, Government Code section 7925.000, and Penal Code section 832.7(b); documents which are privileged pursuant to California Government Code section 7920.535(k) and Penal Code section 832.7; information exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code sections 7928.200 – 7928.230 and Penal Code 832.7(b); documents protected from disclosure by California Government Code sections 7923.600 – 7923.625; information within documents which is protected from disclosure under California Evidence Code section 1041; any documents or information within documents which are protected from disclosure under Penal Code section 11165.5, et seq. and Welfare & Institutions Code sections 827-828; documents or information which are protected from disclosure under California Code of Civil Procedure section 129; documents or information which are protected from disclosure under California Penal Code section 832.7; documents or information which are protected from disclosure under California Penal Code section 832.7(b)(3), unless independently subject to disclosure under Penal Code section 832.7(b)(6); documents or information which are protected from disclosure under California Penal Code section 832.7(b)(9); proprietary trade secrets, technical and competitively-sensitive information protected by law, information protected by a constitutional right to privacy, information protected by an applicable privilege whether or not the person holding the privilege is a party to this Action, information which is protected by a statutory confidential designation, or which otherwise exceeds the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26. b. In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ representations that discovery in this case may involve the production of CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS, and in order 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 reasonably necessary uses of such material in connection with this Action, to address their handling of such MATERIALS at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such MATERIALS is justified in this matter. The parties shall not designate any information/documents as CONFIDENTIAL subject to the terms of this PROTECTIVE ORDER without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be part of the public record of this case. c. In the event that additional parties join or are joined in this Action, they shall not have access to MATERIALS designated as CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to this PROTECTIVE ORDER until they have executed and, at the request of any Party, filed with the court, their agreement to be bound by this PROTECTIVE ORDER, a blank copy of which is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT A.” d. As the parties have represented that discovery in this action may involve the 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, this Court enters the following Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery, nor does this Order permit unfettered access to otherwise protected or exempt MATERIALS. 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, and which were also specifically requested or relied upon in the prosecution or defense of this litigation. e. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth below, that this Order creates no entitlement to file confidential information under seal, except to the extent specified herein. Eastern District Local Rules 141, 141.1, 143, 230 and/or 251 set forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. f. No party shall apply to the Court for an order compelling production of CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS withheld by the PRODUCING PARTY without first attempting to informally resolve the dispute pursuant to the terms of California Eastern District Local Rule

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

Klep v. County of Siskiyou, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Klep v. County of Siskiyou (Klep v. County of Siskiyou) — 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)