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

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedOctober 20, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01371
StatusUnknown

This text of MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL v. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE (MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL v. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 ee 12 || MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-1371-JAD-DJA 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 14 vs. 15 || S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE, As amended on page 8 16 Defendants. 17 18 The parties to this action, by their respective counsel, having agreed to the following, and 19 || for good cause shown pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 26(c)(1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 20 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. 21 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of confidential, 22 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure may be 23 || warranted pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties 24 || acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 25 || discovery and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that 26 || are entitled under law to treatment as confidential. 27 2. SCOPE. 28 All documents produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery requests,

1 || and all deposition testimony and exhibits and any other materials which may be subject to 2 || discovery (hereinafter collectively “Discovery Material”) shall be subject to this stipulated 3 || protective order concerning confidential information as set forth below. Any party, or any third 4 || party who produces documents in this litigation, may designate documents as Confidential but 5 || only after review of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined that the 6 || documents contain “Confidential Information,” as defined below, and pursuant to the procedure 7 || set forth below. 8 3. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 9 “Confidential Information” shall mean information meriting special protection under the 10 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law. Confidential Information does not 11 || include information that: (a) is in the public domain at the time of disclosure; (b) becomes part of 12 || the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; (c) the Receiving Party can show was 13 || already in its rightful and lawful possession at the time of disclosure; or (d) the Receiving Party 14 || lawfully receives from a Non-party later without restriction as to disclosure. 15 4, OTHER DEFINITIONS. 16 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, agents, and attorney(s) 17 || of record for a Party in this action (including their associates, paralegals, and support/clerical 18 || staff). 19 Non-party: any individual, corporation, association, or natural person or entity other than a 20 || party. 21 Protected Material: any Discovery Material containing Confidential Information that is 22 || designated by a Party or Non-party as “CONFIDENTIAL,” unless the Receiving Party challenges 23 || the confidentiality designation and (a) the Court decides such material is not entitled to protection 24 || as confidential; (b) the Designating Party fails to apply the Court for an order designating the 25 || material confidential within the time period specified below; or (c) the Designating Party 26 || withdraws its confidentiality designation in writing. 27 Producing Party: a Party or Non-party that produces Discovery Material in this action. 28 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Discovery Material from a Producing Party.

1 Designating Party: a Party or Non-party that designates Discovery Material as 2 ||“CONFIDENTIAL”. The Party or Non-party designating information or items as Protected 3 || Material bears the burden of establishing good cause for the confidentiality of all such items. 4 Challenging Party: a party that elects to initiate a challenge to a Designating Party’s 5 || confidentiality designation. 6 5, FORM AND TIMING OF DESIGNATION, 7 Protected Material shall be so designated by the Producing Party by placing or affixing the 8 || word “CONFIDENTIAL” on the document in a manner which will not interfere with the legibility 9 || of the document and which will permit complete removal of the “Confidential” designation. 10 || Documents shall be designated “Confidential” prior to, or contemporaneously with, the production 11 || or disclosure of the documents. 12 A Designating Party must exercise restraint and make good faith efforts to limit 13 || CONFIDENTIAL designations to specific materials that qualify for protection under the 14 || appropriate standard. Further, a Designating Party must use good faith efforts to designate for 15 || protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or communications that qualify — so that 16 || other portions of the materials, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not 17 || warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. If only a portion or portions 18 || of materials on a page or within a document merit protection, a Producing Party must so indicate 19 || by making appropriate markings in the margins but not over text. 20 A Producing Party that makes original documents or materials available for inspection 21 || need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated which material 22 || it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all of the 23 || material made available for inspection shall be deemed “Confidential.” After the inspecting Party 24 || has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine 25 || which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order, and, before 26 || producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the appropriate legend on each 27 || page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 28 || qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected

1 || portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriated markings in the margins or by redacting protected 2 || portions). 3 Portions of depositions shall be designated Confidential when the deposition is taken or 4 || within fourteen (14) business days after receipt of the transcript, if feasible. Such designation shall 5 || be specific as to the pages and lines to be protected. A Designating Party must exercise restraint 6 || and make good faith efforts to limit “CONFIDENTIAL” designations to specific testimony or 7 || materials that qualify for protection under the appropriate standards. 8 Inadvertent or unintentional production of Protected Material without prior designation as 9 ||“Confidential” shall not be deemed a waiver, in whole or in part, of the right to designate 10 || documents as Protected Material as otherwise allowed by this Order. Further, a Party may assert 11 || that disclosures or discovery material produced by another Party constitute Protected Material by 12 || informing the opposing Party by following the procedures set forth herein for a Designated Party. 13 6. Protection of PROTECTED Material. 14 a. General Protections.

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)
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety
137 S. Ct. 38 (Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MICKYAS BERHANEMESKEL v. S. LOPEZ, T. RUNDUS, LORSON KADE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mickyas-berhanemeskel-v-s-lopez-t-rundus-lorson-kade-nvd-2025.