M.S. v. Riordan

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedSeptember 3, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00536
StatusUnknown

This text of M.S. v. Riordan (M.S. v. Riordan) 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
M.S. v. Riordan, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 MARK E. FERRARIO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 01625 2 KARA B. HENDRICKS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 07743 3 WHITNEY WELCH-KIRMSE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12129 4 ALIX R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 16540 5 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 6 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 7 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: ferrariom@gtlaw.com 8 hendricksk@gtlaw.com welchkirmsew@gtlaw.com 9 alix.goldstein@gtlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Clark County School District 10 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 M.S., a minor by and through his Parents, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00536-CDS-BNW VANESSA VALLADARES and MICHAEL 14 SAAVEDRA, 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE 16 v. ORDER 17 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CAROLE RIORDAN, individually and in her 18 capacity as Plaintiff’s former teacher of record; DOES I-X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Pursuant to the Stipulation contained herein, by and among counsel for Plaintiff M.S., by 22 and through his parents VANESSA VALLADARES and MICHAEL SAAVEDRA (“Plaintiff”), 23 counsel of record for Defendant CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“CCSD”), and 24 counsel for Defendant CAROLE RIORDAN (“Riordan”), the Court hereby finds as follows: 25 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 26 1. Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 27 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 28 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 1 Accordingly, the Parties hereby jointly stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following 2 Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”). The parties 3 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses 4 to discovery, or any categories of information not specifically addressed herein, and that the 5 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 6 items that are entitled to CONFIDENTIAL treatment under the applicable legal principles, and 7 designated “CONFIDENTIAL” as described herein. The parties further acknowledge, as set 8 forth further below, that this Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order does not 9 entitle them to file CONFIDENTIAL information under seal or otherwise change Federal or 10 Local Rules, procedures, and standards to be applied when a party seeks permission from the 11 court to file material under seal. The “Litigation” shall mean the above-captioned case, M.S. v. 12 Clark County School District, et al., filed in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 13 Case Number 2:25-cv-00536-CDS-BNW. 14 2. “Documents” or “Information” shall mean and include any documents (whether in 15 hard copy or electronic form), records, correspondence, analyses, assessments, statements (financial 16 or otherwise), responses to discovery, tangible articles or things, whether documentary or oral, and 17 other information provided, served, disclosed, filed, or produced, whether voluntarily or through 18 discovery or other means, in connection with this Litigation. A draft or non-identical copy is a 19 separate document within the meaning of these terms. 20 3. “Party” (or “Parties”) shall mean one party (or all parties) in this Litigation, and their 21 in-house and outside counsel. “Producing Party” shall mean any person or entity who provides, 22 serves, discloses, files, or produces any Documents or Information. “Receiving Party” shall mean any 23 person or entity who receives any such Documents or Information. 24 4. The privacy of students is protected under federal law whether they are parties to the 25 Litigation or not. As a school district that receives federal funding, CCSD is bound by the Family 26 Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and is not at liberty to disclose personally identifying 27 information of its students without written consent or court order. The Parties acknowledge that 28 information that could be reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence in this Litigation could 1 contain information that is protected by FERPA. In addition, personnel files of employees involved 2 in an incident are private in nature. As a result, their use must be limited to protect the individuals’ 3 fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of 4 the U.S. Constitution. See, El Dorado Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento 5 County, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (1987). Accordingly, the Parties agree that, in conjunction with 6 discovery proceedings in this Litigation, the Parties may designate any Document, thing, material, 7 testimony, or other Information derived therefrom, which is entitled to confidential treatment under 8 applicable legal principles, as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of this Confidentiality Agreement 9 and Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”), and that anything designated as such shall not be provided 10 or made available to third parties except as permitted by, and in accordance with, the provisions of 11 this Order. Confidential information includes information that qualifies for confidential treatment 12 under applicable legal principles, which may include information contained in personnel files of 13 CCSD employees and/or information that has not been made public and contains trade secret, 14 proprietary and/or sensitive business or personal information, and/or any (personal) information about 15 students that is protected by FERPA. 16 5. In addition, if any Party requests documents or other evidence that are subject to 17 FERPA, the Parties acknowledge that either a motion be filed with the Court to compel the 18 production of the same or the following procedure be followed: 19 a. The Parties will submit a stipulation to the Court identifying the records to 20 be produced and requesting a Court Order approving the notice and disclosure of information; 21 b. Upon receipt of the signed Court Order, CCSD will provide the Order 22 along with a joint letter notifying the affected parties of the right to object to the disclosure of 23 their student’s information. 24 c. Unless the affected party files an objection with the Court within ten (10) 25 days of receipt of notice of the Order, the producing party shall within five (5) days after the 26 expiration of the ten-day time period, produce the information. 27 d. If the affected party or their representative files an objection to disclosure, 28 any party may request that the Court review the objection to determine its validity and/or review 1 the objectionable material at issue in order to make a final determination as to whether such 2 information shall be disclosed. 3 e. The disclosure of FERPA protected information will be marked confidential 4 and produced pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order. 5 6. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under 6 this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under 7 the appropriate standards. Indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited. 8 7. CONFIDENTIAL Documents shall be so designated by marking or stamping each 9 page of the Document produced to or received from a Party with the legend “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 The application of the legend must be made in a manner so as not to render the documents 11 illegible, illegible after photocopying, or incapable of being subjected to Optical Scanning 12 Recognition.

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

Related

El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court
190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M.S. v. Riordan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ms-v-riordan-nvd-2025.