(PS) Walton v. Davis

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 23, 2020·No. 2:18-cv-00080·Unknown

Opinion

BRUCE A. KILDAY, ESQ., SBN 66415 Email: bkilday@akk-law.com GÖKALP Y. GÜRER, ESQ., SBN 311919 Email: ggurer@akk-law.com ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP Attorneys at Law 601 University Avenue, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 564-6100 Telecopier: (916) 564-6263 Attorneys for Defendants OFFICER JASON DAVIS (erroneously sued herein as JUSTIN DAVIS) and DET. SCOTT ROUNDS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY WAYNE WALTON II, ) No. 2:18-cv-0080-TLN-DB PS ) Plaintiff, ) CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT ) AND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE vs. ) ORDER ) COUNTY OF SUTTER, YUBA CITY ) POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER JUSTIN ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff GREGORY WAYNE WALTON II (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants OFFICER JASON DAVIS (erroneously sued herein as JUSTIN DAVIS) and DETECTIVE SCOTT ROUNDS (collectively, the “Defendants”), as well as the CITY OF YUBA CITY (together, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record unless self-represented, that in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents which are subject to confidentiality and in order to protect the fundamental right to privacy of DEFENDANTS and third-parties, the Parties hereby enter into this Confidentiality Agreement and Stipulated Protective Order (the “Protective Order”) pursuant to and enforceable under Fed. R. -1- Civ. P. 26(c). THE PARTIES STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Any material produced by the Parties pursuant to this Protective Order (the “Confidential Material”) is to remain confidential at all times. This Protective Order shall remain in effect for the duration of this action unless terminated by written stipulation or Court order. Insofar as they restrict the disclosure, treatment, or use of the Confidential Material, the provisions of this Protective Order shall continue to be binding and enforceable even after the termination of this action, unless by written stipulation or the Court orders otherwise; 2. The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover not only the produced Confidential Material, but also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, transcriptions, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus testimony, conversations, or presentations by the Parties or counsel to or in Court or in other settings that might reveal Confidential Material; 3. That by agreeing Confidential Material may be produced, the Parties do not waive objections as to attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product, self-critical analysis, and other privileges which may apply, and do not waive the privacy rights of DEFENDANTS or any third parties; 4. The producing party will designate the material subject to this Protective Order as “Confidential.” Further, if a party uses Confidential Material at a deposition or non-public hearing or proceeding, the party shall state on the record, prior to use of such Confidential Material, that the material is confidential and is being used pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order, and shall have fourteen (14) days from receiving the final transcript to designate some or all of the transcript as “Confidential”, or, if no final transcript is requested, fourteen (14) days from the deposition or non-public hearing or proceeding; 5. The inadvertent failure to designate material or testimony as “Confidential” that should be so designated does not prejudice a party’s right to later designate it as such; 6. The receiving party may object to the propriety of the designation of specific material as “Confidential” by serving a written objection on the producing party stating the reasons -2- for the objection. The producing party shall thereafter respond to such objection by serving a written response stating the reasons why the designation was made. The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith regarding their dispute. The meet and confer process will not be deemed to have concluded until the Parties (1) confer at least once via telephone, and (2) confirm in writing that the Parties are unable to resolve their dispute. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge to a confidentiality designation without Court intervention, the producing party shall file and serve a motion to retain confidentiality within twenty-eight (28) days of the conclusion of the meet and confer process. The specific material at issue shall continue to be treated as confidential until the twenty-eight (28) day period within which to file a motion expires or the Court orders otherwise; 7. The producing party shall only designate material as “Confidential” that which it believes in good faith to contain confidential, sensitive, or private information, and the receiving party shall only object to the designation of material as “Confidential” if it believes in good faith that such a designation does not apply; 8. The receiving party agrees to control Confidential Material that it has received, and shall not disclose or distribute the Confidential Material to anyone, such as friends, family, or witnesses, in any way. The receiving party agrees not to upload or post any Confidential Material to any online website or app, and not to disclose any Confidential Material to any organizations, news or otherwise. The receiving party shall not disclose the Confidential Material to anyone, except to (1) the Court and its personnel; (2) expert witnesses who have signed the “Agreement to be Bound by Protective Order”, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; (3) during deposition, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s medical providers, or Defendant Davis and Defendant Rounds, who have signed the “Agreement to be Bound by Protective Order”; or (4) as otherwise agreed by written stipulation or by Court order. 9. The Confidential Material may be used in trial but the Parties shall use reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality, including prior notification twenty-eight (28) days before the Pretrial Conference to the Court and to the Parties that Confidential Material is planned to be used; 10. The Confidential Material are not to be disclosed outside of this litigation absent written stipulation or a determination by the Court that they are not deemed confidential; -3- 11. Without written permission from the designating Party or a Court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a party may not file in the public record in this action any Confidential Material. A party that seeks to file under seal any Confidential Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 141. 12. Nothing contained in this Protective Order shall preclude any party from seeking or obtaining, upon an appropriate showing, additional protection with respect to any document, information, or other discovery material; 13. Within sixty (60) days of the conclusion of this action, all Confidential Material subject to this Protective Order, as well as any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, transcriptions, summaries, or compilations thereof, whether paper or digital, shall be shredded or otherwise destroyed, and the receiving party shall provide the producing party with a sworn affidavit providing as such. This shredding or destruction shall include any Confidential Material, as well as any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, transcriptions, summaries, or compilations thereof, whether paper or digital, that shall already have been returned to the party or counsel as provided in Exhibit A. Any Confidential Material submitted to the Court shall remain sealed; 14. After the conclusion of this action, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute concerning the use or disclosure of Confidential Material produced pursuant to this Protective Order; 15. Any violation of any provision of this Protective Order may be punishable as contempt, sanctioned under the Court’s inherent power, and/or

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

(PS) Walton v. Davis, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

(PS) Walton v. Davis ((PS) Walton v. Davis) — 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)