MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL v. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided October 20, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01371·Unknown

Opinion

1 ROBERT W. FREEMAN Nevada Bar No. 3062 2 Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com E. MATTHEW FREEMAN 3 Nevada Bar No. 14198 Matt.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com 4 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 702.893.3383 6 FAX: 702.893.3789 Attorneys for Defendants 7 Police Officer Sergio Lopez, Police Officer Trevor Rundus and 8 Police Officer Lorson Kade ee MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1371-JAD-DJA Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT vs. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE, As amended on page 8 Defendants. The parties to this action, by their respective counsel, having agreed to the following, and for good cause shown pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26(c)(1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure may be warranted pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled under law to treatment as confidential. 2. SCOPE. All documents produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery requests,

and all deposition testimony and exhibits and any other materials which may be subject to discovery (hereinafter collectively “Discovery Material”) shall be subject to this stipulated protective order concerning confidential information as set forth below. Any party, or any third party who produces documents in this litigation, may designate documents as Confidential but only after review of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined that the documents contain “Confidential Information,” as defined below, and pursuant to the procedure set forth below. 3. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. “Confidential Information” shall mean information meriting special protection under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law. Confidential Information does not include information that: (a) is in the public domain at the time of disclosure; (b) becomes part of the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; (c) the Receiving Party can show was already in its rightful and lawful possession at the time of disclosure; or (d) the Receiving Party lawfully receives from a Non-party later without restriction as to disclosure. 4, OTHER DEFINITIONS. Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, agents, and attorney(s) of record for a Party in this action (including their associates, paralegals, and support/clerical staff). Non-party: any individual, corporation, association, or natural person or entity other than a party. Protected Material: any Discovery Material containing Confidential Information that is designated by a Party or Non-party as “CONFIDENTIAL,” unless the Receiving Party challenges the confidentiality designation and (a) the Court decides such material is not entitled to protection as confidential; (b) the Designating Party fails to apply the Court for an order designating the material confidential within the time period specified below; or (c) the Designating Party withdraws its confidentiality designation in writing. Producing Party: a Party or Non-party that produces Discovery Material in this action. Receiving Party: a Party that receives Discovery Material from a Producing Party.

Designating Party: a Party or Non-party that designates Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL”. The Party or Non-party designating information or items as Protected Material bears the burden of establishing good cause for the confidentiality of all such items. Challenging Party: a party that elects to initiate a challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality designation. 5, FORM AND TIMING OF DESIGNATION, Protected Material shall be so designated by the Producing Party by placing or affixing the word “CONFIDENTIAL” on the document in a manner which will not interfere with the legibility of the document and which will permit complete removal of the “Confidential” designation. Documents shall be designated “Confidential” prior to, or contemporaneously with, the production or disclosure of the documents. A Designating Party must exercise restraint and make good faith efforts to limit CONFIDENTIAL designations to specific materials that qualify for protection under the appropriate standard. Further, a Designating Party must use good faith efforts to designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or communications that qualify — so that other portions of the materials, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. If only a portion or portions of materials on a page or within a document merit protection, a Producing Party must so indicate by making appropriate markings in the margins but not over text. A Producing 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, and, before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the appropriate legend on 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

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

MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL v. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE, (D. Nev. 2025).

MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL v. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE (MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL v. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE) — 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)
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety
137 S. Ct. 38 (Supreme Court, 2016)