(PC) Eidem v. Vang

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedApril 23, 2025
Docket1:23-cv-01198
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Eidem v. Vang ((PC) Eidem v. Vang) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Eidem v. Vang, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 D. Shawn Burkley. Esq. Attorney General of California SBN: 310129 2 LE-MAI D. LYONS, State Bar No. 285756 D. SHAWN BURKLEY, Supervising Deputy Attorney General ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 3 S. GRAY GILMOR, State Bar No. 344232 14900 Magnolia Blvd. #56747 Deputy Attorney General Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 4 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 Mobile: (818) 268-9858 San Diego, CA 92101 shawn@burkleyhouse.com 5 Telephone: (619) 873-8830 Fax: (619) 645-2581 6 E-mail: Gray.Gilmor@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 7 C. Vang 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRESNO DIVISION 11 12 ANTHONY EIDEM, 1:23-cv-01198 JLT BAM 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 v. Judge: The Hon. Barbara A. 15 McAuliffe

16 VANG, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 I. GENERAL 20 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production 21 of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 23 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 24 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on 25 all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 26 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 27 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 28 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 1 under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards 2 that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 3 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve materials which concerns or 4 relates to the processes, operations or work of the California Department of Corrections and 5 Rehabilitation and its employees and agents (collectively “CDCR”), the disclosure of which may 6 have the effect of causing harm or endangering the safety of CDCR staff, inmates, or third persons. 7 Disclosure will also undermine the ability of CDCR to conduct investigations. Additionally, 8 Plaintiff is currently in CDCR custody and providing him access to certain sensitive information 9 creates safety and security concerns. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among 10 other things, information about confidential informants, prison procedures for investigating use-of- 11 force incidents, prison procedure for investigating inmate grievances, prison procedures for 12 investigating inmates accused of misconduct, and other information that is only available to staff 13 on a need-to-know basis, not provided to inmates, and which may be privileged or otherwise 14 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 15 law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 16 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled 17 to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such 18 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 19 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 20 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as Confidential or 21 Attorneys’ Eyes Only for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 22 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why 23 it should not be part of the public record of this case. 24 II. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 27 information or items under this Order. 28 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: 2 extremely sensitive information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 3 things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified 4 above in the Good Cause Statement, and that disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party 5 would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less-restrictive means. 6 Additionally, the information concerns CDCR’s internal affairs, investigatory tactics, and third 7 parties which is not provided to inmates for safety and security reasons. 8 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 9 staff). 10 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 11 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL– ATTORNEYS’ EYES 12 ONLY.” 13 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 14 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 15 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 16 responses to discovery in this matter. 17 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 18 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 19 consultant in this Action. 20 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 21 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 22 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 23 entity not named as a Party to this action. 24 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 25 Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action 26 on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, 27 including support staff. 28 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 1 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 3 Material in this Action. 4 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 5 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, 6 storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 7 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 8 “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 9 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 10 Producing Party. 11 III. SCOPE 12 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material 13 (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) 14 all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 15 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 16 Furthermore, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order shall not be construed 17 as requiring any Party to produce materials that are otherwise protected by an applicable privilege, 18 such as the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or the official-information privilege.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Caraballo
447 F.3d 26 (First Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Eidem v. Vang, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-eidem-v-vang-caed-2025.