Klep v. County of Siskiyou

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMarch 5, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-00274
StatusUnknown

This text of Klep v. County of Siskiyou (Klep v. County of Siskiyou) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

1 Patrick L. Deedon, State Bar No. 245490 Tracey A. Werner, State Bar No. 315876 2 MAIRE & DEEDON 2851 Park Marina Drive, Suite 300 3 Redding, California 96001-2813 4 (530) 246-6050 / 246-6060 (fax) pdeedon@maire-law.com 5 twerner@maire-law.com

6 Attorney(s) for Defendants, 7 COUNTY OF SISKIYOU, CHRIS STOCK, and RICHARD EVANS 8 Derick E. Konz, SBN 286902 9 Ashley Riser, SBN 320538 10 ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP 601 University Avenue, Suite 150 11 Sacramento, California 95825 Tel: (916) 564-6100 12 dkonz@akk-law.com 13 ariser@akk-law.com

14 Attorney(s) for Defendants, CITY OF MT. SHASTA, WALTER MOORE, 15 and JUAN CASANOVA 16 Philip J. Kaplan, SBN 135735 17 LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. KAPLAN 3278 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 106 18 Los Angeles, CA 90010 19 Tel: (213) 820-2874 Philipkaplanlaw@gmail.com 20 Attorney(s) for Plaintiffs, 21 RENEE KLEP and A.K. 22 /// 23

28 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

6 RENEE KLEP, individually and as No. 2:23-cv-0274 WBS DB 7 Successor-in-interest to DARIN KLEP, Decedent; A.K., a minor, by her guardian Ad 8 Litem, RENEE KLEP, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: CONFIDENTIAL 9 Plaintiff, INFORMATION 10 vs. 11 COUNTY OF SISKIYOU; CITY OF MT. 12 SHASTA, a Municipal entity; CHRIS 13 STOCK, an individual; RICHARD EVANS, an individual; WALTER MOORE, an 14 individual; and JUAN CASANOVA, an individual, 15

16 Defendants. ____________________________________/ 17

19 WHEREAS the Plaintiffs, RENEE KLEP and A.K., (hereinafter referred to as 20 “PLAINTIFFS”), and Defendants, COUNTY OF SISKIYOU, CITY OF MT. SHASTA, CHRIS 21 STOCK, RICHARD EVANS, WALTER MOORE, and JUAN CASANOVA (hereinafter 22 collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”), which hereinafter may be referred to collectively 23 as the “PARTIES,” anticipate that during the course of litigation of this case (hereinafter referred 24 25 to as the “instant Action” or the “Action”), discovery may be necessary of information, 26 documents, records, or matters which are protected, confidential, privileged, private, or 27 otherwise sensitive (which categories or descriptors may hereafter be referred to collectively as 28 1 “CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS”), and the PARTIES wish to preserve the protection of those 2 materials while ensuring that discovery may be pursued with minimal delay or expense. 3 THEREFORE, the PARTIES hereby stipulate and agree to the following terms of this 4 STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER (hereinafter referred to as the 5 “PROTECTIVE ORDER”), subject to approval by this Court. 6 7 1. SCOPE OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 8 a. The protection of this PROTECTIVE ORDER may be invoked with 9 respect to any documents, video, photographs, audio recordings, testimony, written responses, 10 information, inspection, and things (collectively "MATERIALS") produced or created in this 11 Action that contain CONFIDENTIAL information. As used herein, the term CONFIDENTIAL 12 13 includes MATERIALS produced in any format, including hardcopy or electronic, that contain 14 confidential information including, but not limited to: documents protected from disclosure by 15 the Privacy Act of 1974 (U.S. Public Law 93-579; documents codified at 5 U.S.C. §552a 16 (2018)); documents exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (codified at 5 17 U.S.C. §552); documents which may be redacted pursuant to California Government Code 18 19 section 7927.700, Government Code section 7925.000, and Penal Code section 832.7(b); 20 documents which are privileged pursuant to California Government Code section 7920.535(k) 21 and Penal Code section 832.7; information exempt from disclosure pursuant to California 22 Government Code sections 7928.200 – 7928.230 and Penal Code 832.7(b); documents protected 23 from disclosure by California Government Code sections 7923.600 – 7923.625; information 24 25 within documents which is protected from disclosure under California Evidence Code section 26 1041; any documents or information within documents which are protected from disclosure 27 under Penal Code section 11165.5, et seq. and Welfare & Institutions Code sections 827-828; 28 1 documents or information which are protected from disclosure under California Code of Civil 2 Procedure section 129; documents or information which are protected from disclosure under 3 California Penal Code section 832.7; documents or information which are protected from 4 disclosure under California Penal Code section 832.7(b)(3), unless independently subject to 5 disclosure under Penal Code section 832.7(b)(6); documents or information which are protected 6 7 from disclosure under California Penal Code section 832.7(b)(9); proprietary trade secrets, 8 technical and competitively-sensitive information protected by law, information protected by a 9 constitutional right to privacy, information protected by an applicable privilege whether or not 10 the person holding the privilege is a party to this Action, information which is protected by a 11 statutory confidential designation, or which otherwise exceeds the scope of Federal Rule of Civil 12 13 Procedure Rule 26. 14 b. In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the 15 parties’ representations that discovery in this case may involve the production of 16 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate 17 the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 18 19 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 20 permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in connection with this Action, to address 21 their handling of such MATERIALS at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, 22 a protective order for such MATERIALS is justified in this matter. The parties shall not 23 designate any information/documents as CONFIDENTIAL subject to the terms of this 24 25 PROTECTIVE ORDER without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been 26 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling 27 reason why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 28 1 c. In the event that additional parties join or are joined in this Action, they 2 shall not have access to MATERIALS designated as CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to this 3 PROTECTIVE ORDER until they have executed and, at the request of any Party, filed with the 4 court, their agreement to be bound by this PROTECTIVE ORDER, a blank copy of which is 5 attached hereto as “EXHIBIT A.” 6 7 d. As the parties have represented that discovery in this action may involve 8 the production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection 9 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 10 be warranted, this Court enters the following Protective Order. This Order does not confer 11 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery, nor does this Order permit 12 13 unfettered access to otherwise protected or exempt MATERIALS. The protection it affords 14 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 15 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles, and which were also specifically 16 requested or relied upon in the prosecution or defense of this litigation. 17 e. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth below, that this Order creates 18 19 no entitlement to file confidential information under seal, except to the extent specified herein.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Klep v. County of Siskiyou, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klep-v-county-of-siskiyou-caed-2024.