Monterrosa v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 16, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01563·Unknown

Opinion

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ., SBN 69888 BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, ESQ. SBN 222173 JAMES COOK, ESQ., SBN 300212 Airport Corporate Center 7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 839-5200 Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 Email: John.Burris@johnburrislaw.com Email: Ben.Nisenbaum@johnburrislaw.com Email: James.Cook@johnburrislaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERONICA A.F. NEBB City Attorney, SBN 140001 BY: MEERA BHATT Assistant City Attorney, SBN 259203 Assistant City Attorney, SBN 264573 Deputy City Attorney, SBN 305726 CITY OF VALLEJO, City Hall 555 Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Vallejo, CA 94590 Tel: (707) 648-4545 Fax: (707) 648-4687 Email: Meera.Bhatt@cityofvallejo.net Katelyn.Knight@cityofvallejo.net Farrah.Hussein@cityofvallejo.net Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF VALLEJO and JARRETT TONN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NEFTALI MONTERROSA, individually and No. 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA; NORA MONTERROSA, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER individually and as co-successor-in-interest to PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA; 141.1 MICHELLE MONTERROSA, individually; ASHLEY MONTERROSA, individually, Plaintiffs,

vs. CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal corporation; JARRETT TONN, individually, and, Vallejo police officers DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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. Particularly as this matter arises from an incident that is still under criminal investigation. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated 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 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 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. 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), and for which public disclosure is likely to result in particularized harm and violate privacy interests recognized by law. This information may include: a. files related to the criminal investigation of the incident while the criminal investigation and review and any consequent criminal proceedings are pending; b. personnel file records of any peace officer; c. medical records; d. social security numbers and similar sensitive identifying information (unless redacted by order or by agreement of all parties). This information shall not include records and information subject to disclosure pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(b) that have been publicly disclosed. 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside counsel of record where applicable and in- 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 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. In- 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. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material that reveal the source of the Protected Material or that reveal specific information entitled to confidentiality as a matter of law; 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. ; (c) any information mentioned or referenced in a deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, unless such portions of testimony have been designated as confidential pursuant to section 5.2 (b) of this order. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 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. For records subject to Penal Code § 832.7(b), the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall cease with respect to any portions of records disclosed to the public at the time that such information and materials are disclosed. The confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in full force and effect with respect to records and portions of records redacted or otherwise withheld from public disclosure. Final disposition sh

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

Monterrosa v. City of Vallejo, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Monterrosa v. City of Vallejo (Monterrosa v. City of Vallejo) — 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)