(PS) Walton v. Davis

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

Opinion

1 BRUCE A. KILDAY, ESQ., SBN 66415 Email: bkilday@akk-law.com 2 GÖKALP Y. GÜRER, ESQ., SBN 311919 3 Email: ggurer@akk-law.com ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP 4 Attorneys at Law 601 University Avenue, Suite 150 5 Sacramento, CA 95825 6 Telephone: (916) 564-6100 Telecopier: (916) 564-6263 7 Attorneys for Defendants OFFICER JASON DAVIS (erroneously sued herein as JUSTIN DAVIS) 8 and DET. SCOTT ROUNDS

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

13 GREGORY WAYNE WALTON II, ) No. 2:18-cv-0080-TLN-DB PS ) 14 Plaintiff, ) CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 15 ) AND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE vs. ) ORDER 16 ) COUNTY OF SUTTER, YUBA CITY ) 17 POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER JUSTIN ) 18 DAVIS, DETECTIVE SCOTT ROUNDS, ) ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff GREGORY WAYNE WALTON 22 II (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants OFFICER JASON DAVIS (erroneously sued herein as JUSTIN 23 DAVIS) and DETECTIVE SCOTT ROUNDS (collectively, the “Defendants”), as well as the 24 CITY OF YUBA CITY (together, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record 25 unless self-represented, that in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents 26 which are subject to confidentiality and in order to protect the fundamental right to privacy of 27 DEFENDANTS and third-parties, the Parties hereby enter into this Confidentiality Agreement and 28 Stipulated Protective Order (the “Protective Order”) pursuant to and enforceable under Fed. R. -1- 1 Civ. P. 26(c). 2 THE PARTIES STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 3 1. Any material produced by the Parties pursuant to this Protective Order (the 4 “Confidential Material”) is to remain confidential at all times. This Protective Order shall remain 5 in effect for the duration of this action unless terminated by written stipulation or Court order. 6 Insofar as they restrict the disclosure, treatment, or use of the Confidential Material, the provisions 7 of this Protective Order shall continue to be binding and enforceable even after the termination of 8 this action, unless by written stipulation or the Court orders otherwise; 9 2. The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover not only the produced 10 Confidential Material, but also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, 11 excerpts, transcriptions, summaries, or compilations thereof, plus testimony, conversations, or 12 presentations by the Parties or counsel to or in Court or in other settings that might reveal 13 Confidential Material; 14 3. That by agreeing Confidential Material may be produced, the Parties do not waive 15 objections as to attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product, self-critical analysis, and other 16 privileges which may apply, and do not waive the privacy rights of DEFENDANTS or any third 17 parties; 18 4. The producing party will designate the material subject to this Protective Order as 19 “Confidential.” Further, if a party uses Confidential Material at a deposition or non-public hearing 20 or proceeding, the party shall state on the record, prior to use of such Confidential Material, that 21 the material is confidential and is being used pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order, and 22 shall have fourteen (14) days from receiving the final transcript to designate some or all of the 23 transcript as “Confidential”, or, if no final transcript is requested, fourteen (14) days from the 24 deposition or non-public hearing or proceeding; 25 5. The inadvertent failure to designate material or testimony as “Confidential” that 26 should be so designated does not prejudice a party’s right to later designate it as such; 27 6. The receiving party may object to the propriety of the designation of specific 28 material as “Confidential” by serving a written objection on the producing party stating the reasons -2- 1 for the objection. The producing party shall thereafter respond to such objection by serving a 2 written response stating the reasons why the designation was made. The Parties shall meet and 3 confer in good faith regarding their dispute. The meet and confer process will not be deemed to 4 have concluded until the Parties (1) confer at least once via telephone, and (2) confirm in writing 5 that the Parties are unable to resolve their dispute. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge to a 6 confidentiality designation without Court intervention, the producing party shall file and serve a 7 motion to retain confidentiality within twenty-eight (28) days of the conclusion of the meet and 8 confer process. The specific material at issue shall continue to be treated as confidential until the 9 twenty-eight (28) day period within which to file a motion expires or the Court orders otherwise; 10 7. The producing party shall only designate material as “Confidential” that which it 11 believes in good faith to contain confidential, sensitive, or private information, and the receiving 12 party shall only object to the designation of material as “Confidential” if it believes in good faith 13 that such a designation does not apply; 14 8. The receiving party agrees to control Confidential Material that it has received, and 15 shall not disclose or distribute the Confidential Material to anyone, such as friends, family, or 16 witnesses, in any way. The receiving party agrees not to upload or post any Confidential Material 17 to any online website or app, and not to disclose any Confidential Material to any organizations, 18 news or otherwise. The receiving party shall not disclose the Confidential Material to anyone, 19 except to (1) the Court and its personnel; (2) expert witnesses who have signed the “Agreement to 20 be Bound by Protective Order”, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; 21 (3) during deposition, Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s medical providers, or Defendant Davis and Defendant 22 Rounds, who have signed the “Agreement to be Bound by Protective Order”; or (4) as otherwise 23 agreed by written stipulation or by Court order. 24 9. The Confidential Material may be used in trial but the Parties shall use reasonable 25 efforts to preserve confidentiality, including prior notification twenty-eight (28) days before the 26 Pretrial Conference to the Court and to the Parties that Confidential Material is planned to be used; 27 10. The Confidential Material are not to be disclosed outside of this litigation absent 28 written stipulation or a determination by the Court that they are not deemed confidential; -3- 1 11. Without written permission from the designating Party or a Court order secured 2 after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a party may not file in the public record in this 3 action any Confidential Material. A party that seeks to file under seal any Confidential Material 4 must comply with Civil Local Rule 141. 5 12. Nothing contained in this Protective Order shall preclude any party from seeking 6 or obtaining, upon an appropriate showing, additional protection with respect to any document, 7 information, or other discovery material; 8 13. Within sixty (60) days of the conclusion of this action, all Confidential Material 9 subject to this Protective Order, as well as any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well 10 as all copies, excerpts, transcriptions, summaries, or compilations thereof, whether paper or digital, 11 shall be shredded or otherwise destroyed, and the receiving party shall provide the producing party 12 with a sworn affidavit providing as such. This shredding or destruction shall include any 13 Confidential Material, as well as any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all 14 copies, excerpts, transcriptions, summaries, or compilations thereof, whether paper or digital, that 15 shall already have been returned to the party or counsel as provided in Exhibit A. Any 16 Confidential Material submitted to the Court shall remain sealed; 17 14.

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)