M.B. v. County of Butte

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 9, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-01977·Unknown

Opinion

\\porRTER | ScoTT William E. Camy, SBN 291397 Alison J. Southard, SBN 335716 2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95815 TEL: 916.929.1481] FAX: 916.927.3706 weamy(@porterscott.com asouthard@porterscott.com OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE Brad J. Stephens, SBN 212246 25 County Center Drive, Suite 210 Oroville, CA 95965 TEL: 530.538.7621 FAX: 530.538.6891 EMAIL: bstephens@buttecounty.net Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF BUTTE, STEPHANIE BRAZIL, SARAH PEDERSON (also sued as “SARAH CORNETT”), DEPUTY PANUKE and DEPUTY MICHAEL KEATING Exempt from Filing Fee Pursuant to Government Code section 6103 UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The minor, M.B., by and through her guardian No. 2:23-ev-01977 DAD DB ad litem Brett Brashears, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, vs. Butte County, a puplic entity; Stephanie Brazil, an individual; Sarah Cornett, an wndividual; Deputy Panuke, an individual; Deputy Michael Keating, an individual; Youth 74 & Family Programs Foster Family Agency, a California corporation. Eugene C. Bastings, and individual; and Does 1 Through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Complaint filed: 9/13/2023 4867-7543-6876, v. 1 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

Discovery in this action is likely to involve 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. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 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. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Eastern District 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. The confidential information of minors and other parties involved in the underlying juvenile dependency proceeding which form the basis of, and give rise to, the instant litigation are protected under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 827 and California Rules of Court, Rule 5.552. The information contained in many of the records and documents likely to be sought in discovery thus constitutes confidential and private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, but are not limited to, confidential medical records, psychological records, juvenile case files and related records (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), other information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 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. A. Action: This pending federal law suit, M.B. v. County of Butte, et al., Case No. 2:23-CV- 01977-DAD-DB. B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. C. “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), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. D. Counsel: Counsel of Record for the parties as well as their support staff. E. Designating Party: A Party or Non Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All documents or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained, that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to written discovery in this matter. G. 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. H. Non Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. I. 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, and includes support staff. J. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, Experts, and Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). K. Producing Party: A Party or Non Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. L. 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. M. Protected Material: Any Document, written Disclosure or written Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” N. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. A. 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; and (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material. B. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to this Protective Order that is admitted into evidence becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing a “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when merits related documents are part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this Protective Order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial. All parties reserve the right to separately seek a Court order regarding the confid

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

M.B. v. County of Butte, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

M.B. v. County of Butte (M.B. v. County of Butte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Michael Clifton Chase
18 F.3d 1166 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
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)