Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al.

E.D. California

Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 18, 2026·No. 2:23-cv-02100·Unknown

Opinion

LORENA CHERPAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02100-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED y STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 47) CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., Defendant. The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 47), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. Dated: May 18, 2026 C i s CHI S00 KIM 7, cher2100.23sstip UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

K. CHIKE ODIWE, ESQ. (SBN 315109) LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH C. ODIWE, PC 2880 Zanker Road Suite 203 San Jose, CA 95134 Telephone: (669) 315-4431 Facsimile: (669) 315-4431 kenneth@kennethodiwelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff LORENA CHERPAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:23-cv-02100-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED v. PROTECTIVE ORDER

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation; ADAM BRUNIE, in his individual capacity as a law enforcement officer for the CITY OF FAIRFIELD; SELENA DIAZ, in her individual capacity as a law enforcement officer for the CITY OF FAIRFIELD; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action is expected to involve the categories of sensitive information identified in Section 1.3 below, for which specific protection from public disclosure and use outside this litigation is warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protection on all discovery material. Only information that falls within the specific categories identified in Section 1.3 and is designated in good faith on a document by document basis shall be entitled to protection. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve information protected by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights (POBRA) and Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights Act as set forth in California Government Code section 3300 et. seq. and Penal Code section 832.7 and 832.8 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Defendants may be producing documents that contain personal and confidential information regarding individuals which information is generally unavailable to the public, including peace officer personnel records. The disclosure of this information to the public may violate those individuals’ privacy rights. Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034, (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. The uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. Defendants further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law that uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests. Defendants also contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 828-830 (1985); fc. U.S. Const., amend V. Defendants contend that law enforcement agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1 089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668- 671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Additionally, Defendants may be producing reports obtained from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), which reports are generally unavailable to the public and the disclosure of which is subject to state and federal laws and regulations restricting and/or limiting disclosure or dissemination. The disclosure of this information to the public may jeopardize the security of CLETS, the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts that rely on CLETS, and the safety of law enforcement officers using CLETS. Defendants may also be producing documents concerning confidential internal policies, which documents are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the security of the State’s operations and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. Finally, Defendants may be producing investigation reports which are generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of which could violate individuals’ privacy rights and jeopardize the safety of officers. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records, because of the privacy interests at stake. Because of these sensitive interests, a court order should address these documents rather than a private agreement between the parties. Accordingly, 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 en

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

LORENA CHERPAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02100-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED y STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 47) CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., Defendant. The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 47), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. Dated: May 18, 2026 C i s CHI S00 KIM 7, cher2100.23sstip UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

K. CHIKE ODIWE, ESQ. (SBN 315109) LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH C. ODIWE, PC 2880 Zanker Road Suite 203 San Jose, CA 95134 Telephone: (669) 315-4431 Facsimile: (669) 315-4431 kenneth@kennethodiwelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff LORENA CHERPAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:23-cv-02100-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED v. PROTECTIVE ORDER

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation; ADAM BRUNIE, in his individual capacity as a law enforcement officer for the CITY OF FAIRFIELD; SELENA DIAZ, in her individual capacity as a law enforcement officer for the CITY OF FAIRFIELD; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action is expected to involve the categories of sensitive information identified in Section 1.3 below, for which specific protection from public disclosure and use outside this litigation is warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protection on all discovery material. Only information that falls within the specific categories identified in Section 1.3 and is designated in good faith on a document by document basis shall be entitled to protection. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve information protected by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights (POBRA) and Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights Act as set forth in California Government Code section 3300 et. seq. and Penal Code section 832.7 and 832.8 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Defendants may be producing documents that contain personal and confidential information regarding individuals which information is generally unavailable to the public, including peace officer personnel records. The disclosure of this information to the public may violate those individuals’ privacy rights. Defendants contend that peace officers have a federal privilege of privacy in their personnel file records: a reasonable expectation of privacy therein that is underscored, specified, and arguably heightened by the Pitchess protective procedure of California law. See Sanchez v. Santa Ana Police Dept., 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-1034, (9th Cir. 1990); Hallon v. City of Stockton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665, *2-3, 12-13 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (concluding that “while “[f]ederal law applies to privilege based discovery disputes involving federal claims,” the “state privilege law which is consistent with its federal equivalent significantly assists in applying [federal] privilege law to discovery disputes”); Cal. Penal Code §§ 832.7, 832.8; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1047. The uncontrolled disclosure of such personnel file information can threaten the safety of non-party witnesses, officers, and their families/associates. Defendants further contend that such personnel file records are restricted from disclosure by the public entity’s custodian of records pursuant to applicable California law that uncontrolled release is likely to result in needless intrusion of officer privacy; impairment in the collection of third-party witness information and statements and related legitimate law enforcement investigations/interests. Defendants also contend that, since peace officers do not have the same rights as other private citizens to avoid giving compelled statements, it is contrary to the fundamental principles of fairness to permit uncontrolled release of officers’ compelled statements. See generally Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822, 828-830 (1985); fc. U.S. Const., amend V. Defendants contend that law enforcement agencies have federal deliberative-executive process privilege, federal official information privilege, federal law enforcement privilege, and federal attorney-client privilege (and/or attorney work product protection) interests in the personnel files of their peace officers – particularly as to those portions of peace officer personnel files that contain critical self-analysis, internal deliberation/decision-making or evaluation/analysis, or communications for the purposes of obtaining or rendering legal advice or analysis – potentially including but not limited to evaluative/analytical portions of Internal Affairs type records or reports, evaluative/analytical portions of supervisory records or reports, and/or reports prepared at the direction of counsel, or for the purpose of obtaining or rendering legal advice. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034; Maricopa Audubon Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 108 F.3d 1 089, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 1997); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 654, 668- 671 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1988). Additionally, Defendants may be producing reports obtained from the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), which reports are generally unavailable to the public and the disclosure of which is subject to state and federal laws and regulations restricting and/or limiting disclosure or dissemination. The disclosure of this information to the public may jeopardize the security of CLETS, the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts that rely on CLETS, and the safety of law enforcement officers using CLETS. Defendants may also be producing documents concerning confidential internal policies, which documents are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the security of the State’s operations and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. Finally, Defendants may be producing investigation reports which are generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of which could violate individuals’ privacy rights and jeopardize the safety of officers. The parties jointly contend that there is typically a particularized need for protection as to any medical or psychotherapeutic records, because of the privacy interests at stake. Because of these sensitive interests, a court order should address these documents rather than a private agreement between the parties. Accordingly, 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 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF INFORMATION ELIGIBLE FOR PROTECTION Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), the parties identify the following categories of information that may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” provided such designation is made in good faith and consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c): a. Peace Officer Personnel Records This includes personnel files, internal affairs investigations, disciplinary records, use of force reviews, complaints, and related evaluative or investigative materials protected under California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and related authorities. b. Law Enforcement Investigative Materials This includes incident reports, investigative reports, witness statements, evidence logs, and other materials reflecting ongoing or completed law enforcement investigations that are not publicly available. c. Confidential Law Enforcement Databases and Systems This includes information obtained from or derived from systems such as CLETS or similar restricted-access databases, the disclosure of which could compromise law enforcement operations or public safety. d. Internal Policies and Tactical Procedures This includes non-public law enforcement policies, procedures, training materials, tactical guidelines, and operational protocols, the disclosure of which could create safety risks or undermine effective law enforcement operations. e. Personal Identifying and Private Information This includes home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, financial information, medical or mental health records, and other sensitive personal data of parties, officers, witnesses, or third parties. f. Medical and Psychotherapeutic Records This includes medical, mental health, or counseling records of any individual, which implicate significant privacy interests. g. Confidential Communications and Privileged Materials This includes attorney client communications, attorney work product, and internal deliberative materials reflecting legal advice, strategy, or evaluative analysis. h. Third Party Confidential Information This includes information produced by non parties subject to confidentiality obligations or privacy protections. The parties agree that these categories are intended to provide sufficient notice of the nature of protected information and are not a basis for blanket designation. Each designation must be made on a document-by-document basis, with a good faith belief that the material falls within one or more of these categories. 1.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 2.15 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order of the trial judge. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation. 5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. Designation in conformity with this Order requires: (a) For information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing Party affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” to each page that contains protected material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents or materials available for inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed “CONFIDENTIAL.” After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order. Then, before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the “CONFIDENTIAL” legend to each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). (b) for testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, that the Designating Party identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, hearing, or other proceeding, all protected testimony. (c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the container or containers in which the information or item is stored the legend “CONFIDENTIAL.” If only a portion or portions of the information or item warrant protection, the Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the protected portion(s). 5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent failure to designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the Designating Party’s right to secure protection under this Order for such material. Upon timely correction of a designation, the Receiving Party must make reasonable efforts to assure that the material is treated in accordance with the provisions of this Stipulated Protective Order. Any designation must be tied to one or more of the categories identified in Section 1.3. 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS 6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed. 6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute resolution process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing the basis for each challenge. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge has been made, the written notice must recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in accordance with this specific paragraph of the Protective Order. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice to voice dialogue; other forms of communication are not sufficient) within 14 days of the date of service of notice. In conferring, the Challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality designation was not proper and must give the Designating Party an opportunity to review the designated material, to reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, to explain the basis for the chosen designation. A Challenging Party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first or establishes that the Designating Party is unwilling to participate in the meet and confer process in a timely manner. 6.3 Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court intervention, the Designating Party shall file and serve a motion to retain confidentiality under Civil Local Rule 230 (and in compliance with Civil Local Rule 140, if applicable) within 21 days of the initial notice of challenge or within 14 days of the parties agreeing that the meet and confer process will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Each such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph. Failure by the Designating Party to make such a motion including the required declaration within 21 days (or 14 days, if applicable) shall automatically waive the confidentiality designation for each challenged designation. In addition, the Challenging Party may file a motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so, including a challenge to the designation of a deposition transcript or any portions thereof. Any motion brought pursuant to this provision must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed by the preceding paragraph. The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating Party has waived the confidentiality designation by failing to file a motion to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until the court rules on the challenge. 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL 7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions described in this Order. When the litigation has been terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of section 13 below (FINAL Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this Order. 7.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated “CONFIDENTIAL” only to: (a) the Receiving Party’s Outside Counsel of Record in this action, as well as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A; (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the 1 “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 2 (c) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is 3 reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and 4 Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 5 (d) the court and its personnel; 6 (e) court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, 7 and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who 8 have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 9 (f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the court. Pages of transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected Material must be separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this Stipulated Protective Order. (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information. 81. 7 PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED IN OTHER If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation that compels disclosure of any information or items designated in this action as “CONFIDENTIAL,” that Party must: (a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall include a copy of the subpoena or court order; (b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to issue in the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or order is subject to this Protective Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Stipulated Protective Order; and (c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued by the 1 Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected. 2 If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with the 3 subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in this action as 4 “CONFIDENTIAL” before a determination by the court from which the subpoena or order 5 issued, unless the Party has obtained the Designating Party’s permission. The Designating Party 6 shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its confidential material – 7 and nothing in these provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a Receiving 8 Party in this action to disobey a lawful directive from another court. 9. 9 A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IN THIS (a) The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a Non-Party in this action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” Such information produced by Non-Parties in connection with this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief provided by this Order. Nothing in these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party from seeking additional protections. (b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to produce a Non-Party’s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is subject to an agreement with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s confidential information, then the Party shall: (1) promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party that some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement with a Non-Party; (2) promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated Protective Order in this litigation, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of the information requested; and (3) make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-Party. (c) If the Non-Party fails to object or seek a protective order from this court within 14 days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party may produce the Non-Party’s confidential information responsive to the discovery request. If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall not produce any information in its possession 1 or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a 2 determination by the court. Absent a court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the 3 burden and expense of seeking protection in this court of its Protected Material. 4 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL 5 If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected 6 Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Stipulated Protective 7 Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the 8 unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the 9 Protected Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1112. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain inadvertently produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection, the obligations of the Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e), insofar as the parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, the parties may incorporate their agreement in the stipulated protective order submitted to the court. 12. MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any person to seek its modification by the court in the future. 12.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this Protective Order no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in this Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by this Protective Order. 12.3 Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating Party or a court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in the public record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 140. Protected Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at issue. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 140, a sealing order will issue only upon a request establishing that the Protected Material at issue is privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. If a Receiving Party's request to file Protected Material under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 140 is denied by the court, then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record pursuant to Civil Local Rule 140 unless otherwise instructed by the court. 13. FINAL DISPOSITION Within 60 days after the final disposition of this action, as defined in paragraph 4, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to this Protective Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION). DATED: May 14, 2026 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH C. ODIWE, PC /s/ Attorneys for Plaintiff LORENA CHERPAN DATED: May 14, 2026 STREAM KIM HICKS WRAGE & ALFARO, PC /s/ By: JOANNE TRAN Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF FAIRFIELD, ADAM BRUNIE and SELENA DIAZ

ATTESTATION Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1, I hereby attest that all counsel represented by conformed signatures above have concurred in the filing of this [PROPOSED] Stipulated Protective Order.

DATED: May 14, 2026 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH C. ODIWE, PC

/s/ KENNETH C. ODIWE Attorneys for Plaintiff LORENA CHERPAN

I, _____________________________ [print or type full name], of _________________ [print or type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and understand the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on __________________[date] in the case of Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02100-TLN-CSK . I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order. I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action. I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of _______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone number] as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order. Date: ______________________________________ City and State where sworn and signed: _________________________________ Printed name: _______________________________ Signature: __________________________________

Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al. (Lorena Cherpan v. City of Fairfield, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related