(PC) Rojas v. Kernan

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 19, 2022·No. 1:17-cv-01514·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACY ROJAS, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01514-ADA-BAK

Plaintiffs, ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. (ECF No. 106) EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS This action is likely to involve the disclosure of confidential materials that implicate the privacy rights of third parties, material that may negatively impact the institutional security of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and material that is otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. The Court recognizes that at least some of the documents and information (materials) that will be sought through discovery in the above-captioned action are normally kept confidential by the parties. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“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 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; General 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. The parties have agreed to be bound by the terms of this Order in this action. 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 – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection and includes confidential information that has not been made immediately available to the general public by the Plaintiffs, CDCR, or their agents, and constitutes or discloses information which threatens safety or security of a prison or individual. “Attorneys” shall be limited to the counsel of record in this case and their support staff. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection as confidential as stated in Section 2.2, but that may be disclosed to the parties in this action. 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” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 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, made available for inspection, 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 or may be retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action, or who may testify as a non-retained expert. 2.7 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.8 Counsel of Record: attorneys who 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, as well as their support staff. No current inmate or relative of a Party who is not an employee of Counsel’s firm shall qualify as support staff in this case. 2.9 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.10 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.11 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. Professional Vendors who visit any prison, must comply with the institution’s rules and entry procedures, as well as any applicable portions of the Department Operations Manual and the California Code of Regulations. 2.12 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.13 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also: (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that reveal Protected Material. This order does not govern any use of Protected Material at trial. 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. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, re-hearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time under applicable law. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection, the Design

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

(PC) Rojas v. Kernan, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PC) Rojas v. Kernan ((PC) Rojas v. Kernan) — 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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)