Maldonado v. City of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 13, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-00102·Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION MARISSA MALDONADO as Case No. 1:24-cv-00102-KES-SAB 1] representative of the ESTATE OF AIMEE NICOLE DOUGHTY, S.D. by 12 || and through her guardian ad litem MARISSA MALDONADO, U.C. by ORDER ENTERING PROTECTIVE 13}land through his Puardian ad litem ORDER REGARDING MARISSA MALDONADO, E.D.M. by | CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 14]/and through his Puardian ad litem | MARISSA MALDONADO, E.R.M. by 15 || and through his Puardian ad litem (ECF No. 26) 9 MARISSA MALDONADO, E.K.M. by S| 16|\and through his Puardian ad litem MARISSA MALDONADO, O:S. by and through his Puardian ad litem 18 MARISSA MALDONADO, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 “ CITY OF FRESNO; OFFICER R. || HARRELL, OFFICER ERIC CLAIBORNE; ANTHONY JEFF; 22 || ALICE VALENZUELA; POLICE CHIEF PACO BALDERRAMA, 23 || UNKNOWN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, and DOES 1-30, 95 Defendants. 26 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES (“Stipulation and 27|| Joint Request for Protective Order Regarding Confidential Documents”), and 28

] |] pursuant to the Court’s inherent and statutory authority, including but not limited to 2 ||the Court’s authority under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 3 |] United States District Court, Eastern District of California Local Rules; after due 4 || consideration of all the relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon 5 || such other evidence or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing 6 || therefore, and in furtherance of the interests of justice, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS 9 A. DEFINITIONS 10 1.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit in Marissa Maldonado, et al. v. City 11 || of Fresno, et al., 1:24-cv-00102-KES-SAB.

12 1.2 Challenging Party: a party or non-party that challenges the designation 13 || of information or items under this Order. 14 1.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information, in documentary 15 || or electronic form, or tangible things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of z 16 || the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as specified above in the Good Cause Statement 17 || of the Stipulation and Joint Request for Protective Order Regarding Confidential 18 || Documents, including the following information or items: peace officer personnel 19 |}records defined by California Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7, 832.8, and the 20 || associated case law; medical and/or psychotherapeutic records; autopsy photographs; 21||and personal identifying information of third party witnesses or victims, e.g. 22 || addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and social security numbers. 23 1.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 24 || support staff). 25 1.5 Designating Party: a party or non-party that designates information or 26||items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 27 || “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28

1 1.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 2 ||the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 3 || among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 4 || generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 1.7. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a party or its counsel to serve as 7 || an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 1.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. 9 || House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 10 || counsel. 1] 1.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 12 || other legal entity not named as a Party to this Action. 13 1.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a Party 14 ||to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party to this Action and have 15 || appeared in this Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm which 16 || has appeared on behalf of that Party, and includes support staff. 17 1.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 18 || employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 19 |) support staffs). 20 1.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 21 || Discovery Material in this Action. 22 1.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 23 ||services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 24 || demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 25 || and their employees and subcontractors. 26 1.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 27 || designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28

] 1.15 Receiving Party: a party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 2 || from a Producing Party. 3 1.16 Final Disposition: is defined as the conclusion of any appellate 4 || proceedings in this Action, or, if no appeal is taken, when the time for filing of an 5 || appeal has run. 6 || 2. SCOPE OF PROTECTION 7 The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover not only Protected 8 || Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from 9 || Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected 10 || Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their 11 || Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

12 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 13 || Court. This Protective Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 14 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 15 Disclosure and discovery in this case are likely to involve production of | 16 || confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 17 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than this litigation may be 18 || warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to the following Protective Order. 19 The parties acknowledge that the Protective Order does not confer blanket 20 || protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 21 || affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 22 || that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 23 || parties further acknowledge, as set forth below, that this Protective Order does not 24 || entitle them to file confidential information under seal except to the extent specified 25 ||herein; U.S. District Court, Eastern District Local Rules 141, 141.1, 143, and 251 26 || set(s) forth the procedures that must be followed and reflects the standards that will 27 || be applied when a Party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 28

] Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed so as to require or mandate 2 ||that any Party disclose or produce privileged information or records that could be 3 || designated as Confidential Documents/Protected Material hereunder. 4/3. DURATION OF PROTECTED —_MATERIAL/CONFIDENTIAL 5 || DOCUMENTS 6 Except as set forth below, the terms of this Protective Order apply through Final 7 || Disposition of the Action. The Parties may stipulate that the they will be contractually 8 || bound by the terms of Stipulation and Joint Request for Protective Order Regarding 9 || Confidential Documents beyond Final Disposition, but will have to file a separate 10 action for enforcement of the agreement once all proceedings in this Action are 11 || complete.

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

Maldonado v. City of Fresno, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Maldonado v. City of Fresno (Maldonado v. City of Fresno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)