(PC) Gracia v. County of Kern

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 23, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-01104·Unknown

Opinion

By: Kathleen S. Rivera, Deputy (SBN 211606) Stephanie Virrey Gutcher, Deputy (SBN 277833) Kern County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Telephone 661-868-3800 Fax 661-868-3805 Email: krivera@kerncounty.com sgutcher@kerncounty.com Attorneys for Defendants, County of Kern and David Navarro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CAROLINA GRACIA, individually and as Case No.: 1:23-cv-01104-JLT-BAM successor-in-interest to LOUIE GRIJALVA IV, Plaintiffs, STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; ORDER vs.

COUNTY OF KERN, DAVID NAVARRO Complaint filed: July 24, 2023 and DOES 1 through 6, inclusive, Trial date: April 14, 2026 Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the following Protective Order be entered: I. Definitions: The following definitions shall govern the construction of this stipulation unless the context otherwise requires. (a) CONFIDENTIAL Information. “CONFIDENTIAL Information” means any and all Information regardless of format or medium, including personal, proprietary, and financial information, state and federal tax records, and other Information which a party has a right to protect from unrestricted disclosure. In the context of the present case, it also includes, but is not limited to: (1) any peace officer information protected by California Penal Code Section 832.7 and California (b) Disclosing Party: “Disclosing Party” means the party who discloses CONFIDENTIAL Information. (c) Information. “Information” means any overdose investigation records, personnel records, audio and video recordings of statements and events and medical / overdose records of third parties, obtained through disclosures, and through discovery obtained through the use of interrogatories, requests for admission, requests for production of documents and things, depositions, subpoenas or other Information obtained during discovery. (d) Notice. “Notice” means reasonable notice under the circumstances. The manner and amount of Notice shall be governed by the particular circumstances. (e) Person. “Person” means person as defined in California Evidence Code § 175. (f) Documents. “Documents” means all written, recorded, graphic, or electronically stored matter whatsoever, including, but not limited to, materials produced pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by subpoena or by agreement, deposition transcripts and exhibits, interrogatory answers, responses to requests for admissions, and any portion of any Court papers that quote from the foregoing and any other disclosure or discovery material that is designated by the parties as “Confidential”, of or regarding any overdose investigation records, personnel records, audio and video recordings of statements and events and medical / overdose records of third parties. The term “documents” is limited to material or information produced in the above-captioned litigation. II. Scope and Intent. (a) Until further order of the Court or stipulation of the parties, all Information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” by the Disclosing Party, to the extent such Information discloses CONFIDENTIAL Information, shall be subject to this stipulation. However, nothing in this stipulation shall prevent any party from seeking a modification of this stipulation or objecting to the designation of Information as CONFIDENTIAL Information which the party believes to be otherwise improper. (b) The purpose and intent of this Order is to protect CONFIDENTIAL Information produced by both parties, including but not limited to peace officer personnel records and existing burdens. 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 the applicable legal principles to treatment as confidential. (c) The protections conferred by this Stipulated Protective Order cover not only Confidential Information (as defined above), but also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus testimony, conversations, or presentations by parties or counsel to or in court or in other settings that might reveal Confidential Information. (d) The parties recognize and acknowledge that some CONFIDENTIAL Information which may be sought is so sensitive that a party may refuse to disclose the Information even under the protection of this stipulation. In such event, this stipulation shall not be deemed consent or an admission that such Information is discoverable and a party may resist disclosure until the matter has been heard by the Court. However, the party refusing to disclose any such information so sensitive shall first seek an in camera review by the District Court before any such refusal to disclose any such information. (e) This stipulation is the product of negotiations and, for purposes of construction and interpretation, shall not be deemed to have been drafted by one party. (f) This stipulation shall be submitted for the signature of the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case in an ex parte manner without need of a formally noticed motion. III. Designation of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Any Disclosing Party may designate Information, or any portion of such Information, as CONFIDENTIAL Information by placing the word “CONFIDENTIAL” on the Information. By designating Information as CONFIDENTIAL, the Disclosing Party warrants that the designation is made in good faith and on reasonable belief that the Information so designated is CONFIDENTIAL Information as defined above. / / / IV. Oral Deposition Testimony. A party may designate as CONFIDENTIAL Information, Information disclosed during oral deposition by stating so on the record or in writing within 30 days from receipt of the transcript. Where documents that have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL are entered into the record of a deposition or where CONFIDENTIAL Information is disclosed during deposition, such portion of the deposition containing CONFIDENTIAL Information shall be separately bound and marked “CONFIDENTIAL – UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER” in a conspicuous place and shall be subject to the provisions of this stipulation. V. Objection to Designation. A party may at any time object to the designation of Information as CONFIDENTIAL and move the Court for an order declaring that such Information not be designated CONFIDENTIAL. No motion relating to the designation of Information as CONFIDENTIAL shall be filed without first completing the following steps. First, the moving party SHALL confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. Second, if the good faith effort is unsuccessful, the moving party promptly shall seek a telephonic hearing with all involved parties and the Magistrate Judge. It shall be the obligation of the moving party to arrange and originate the conference call to the court. Counsel must comply with Local Rule 251 or the motion will be denied with prejudice and dropped from calendar. VI. Information Which Is Not Confidential. Notwithstanding the designation of Information as CONFIDENTIAL, such Information shall not be CONFIDENTIAL Information, nor shall disclosure be limited in accordance with this stipulation where such Information, is at the time of disclosure, in the public domain by publication otherwise. VII. CONFIDENTIAL Information Obtained from Third Parties. If CONFIDENTIAL Information is obtained from a third party, the third party may adopt the benefits and burdens of this stipulation. Likewise, any party may designate material or Information obtained from a third party as CONFID

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

(PC) Gracia v. County of Kern, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(PC) Gracia v. County of Kern ((PC) Gracia v. County of Kern) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)