Sims v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided July 28, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00483·Unknown

Opinion

1 Hon. Tana Lin

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10 Plaintiff, No. 2:22-cv-00483-TL 11 vs. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 12 CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, PROTECTIVE ORDER and ROBERT BROWN, GREGORY NASH, 13 GARRETT FOLLETTE, and BRADLEY RICHARDSON, Officers of the Seattle Police 14 Department,

15 Defendants.

17 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private 19 information for which special protection may be warranted. Such information may implicate the 20 privacy interests of the parties and are properly protected through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (“Rule 26(c) includes among its 21 express purposes the protection of a ‘party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or 22 undue burden or expense.’ Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other 23 1 rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language 2 of the Rule.”); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (a party’s privacy rights 3 are to be protected through a “carefully crafted protective order.”). Accordingly, the parties hereby 4 stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this agreement is consistent with LCR 26(c). It does not confer blanket protection 5 on all disclosures or responses to discovery, the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 6 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 7 applicable legal principles, and it does not presumptively entitle parties to file confidential 8 information under seal. 9 2. “CONFIDENTIAL” MATERIAL 10 “Confidential” material may include the following documents and tangible things produced or otherwise exchanged: (1) medical, psychological, employment, financial and family related 11 records of plaintiff, defendants and/or third parties (including personal financial, medical, 12 psychological or family related materials that are relevant to the action; personal financial, medical, 13 psychological or family related materials, that are not relevant to this action will be redacted); (2) 14 records that could implicate privacy rights of the individual defendants, plaintiff or third parties, 15 including, but not limited to, personal identifying information (“PII”) such as date of birth, social 16 security number, personal home address, phone number, e-mail address, criminal record number, 17 driver’s license number, and state identification number; (3) personal financial information; (4) passport information; (5) immigration status; (6) video recordings within correctional facilities that 18 depict jail operations or jail functions; (7) any information protected from release by statute and 19 exempt from public disclosure; (8) police personnel files that contain personal or sensitive 20 information; (9) Body Worn Video footage, to the extent such footage contains information exempt 21 from public disclosure, and with the understanding that redacted BWV files already produced under 22 the Public Records Act are not confidential; and (10) non-public tactical policies and procedures and 23 training protocols. 1 3. SCOPE 2 The protections conferred by this agreement cover not only confidential material (as defined 3 above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from confidential material; (2) all copies, 4 excerpts, summaries, or compilations of confidential material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by parties or their counsel that might reveal confidential material. 5 However, the protections conferred by this agreement do not cover information that is in the 6 public domain or becomes part of the public domain through trial or otherwise. 7 4. ACCESS TO AND USE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 8 4.1 Basic Principles. A receiving party may use confidential material that is disclosed or 9 produced by another party or by a non-party in connection with this case only for evaluation of the 10 material or of the case, prosecuting and/or defending the case, evaluation experts and expert opinions or attempting to settle this litigation. Confidential material may be disclosed only to the categories of 11 persons and under the conditions described in this agreement. Confidential material must be stored 12 and maintained by a receiving party at a location and in a reasonably secure manner that ensures that 13 access is limited to the persons authorized under this agreement. 14 4.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by 15 the court or permitted in writing by the designating party, a receiving party may disclose any 16 confidential material only to: 17 (a) the receiving party’s counsel of record in this action, as well as employees of counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation; 18 (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including in house counsel) of the 19 receiving party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation, unless the parties agree 20 that a particular document or material produced is for Attorney’s Eyes Only and is so designated; 21 (c) experts and consultants to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this 22 litigation and if provided copies of said material, have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement 23 to Be Bound” (Exhibit A); 1 (d) the court, court personnel, and court reporters and their staff; 2 (e) copy or imaging services retained by counsel to assist in the duplication of 3 confidential material, provided that counsel for the party retaining the copy or imaging service 4 instructs the service not to disclose any confidential material to third parties and to immediately return all originals and copies of any confidential material; 5 (f) during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is 6 reasonably necessary, or who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” 7 (Exhibit A), unless otherwise agreed by the designating party or ordered by the court. Pages of 8 transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal confidential material must be 9 separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under 10 this agreement; (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian 11 or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; and 12 (h) mediators and their staff. 13 4.3 Filing Confidential Material. Before filing confidential material or discussing or 14 referencing such material in court filings, the filing party shall confer with the designating party, in 15 accordance with Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A), to determine whether the designating party will 16 remove the confidential designation, whether the document can be redacted, or whether a motion to 17 seal or stipulation and proposed order is warranted. During the meet and confer process, the designating party must identify the basis for sealing the specific confidential information at issue, 18 and the filing party shall include this basis in its motion to seal, along with any objection to sealing 19 the information at issue. Local Civil Rule 5(g) sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 20 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under 21 seal. A party who seeks to maintain the confidentiality of its information must satisfy the 22 requirements of Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B), even if it is not the party filing the motion to seal.

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

Sims v. City of Seattle, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Sims v. City of Seattle (Sims v. City of Seattle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Soto v. City of Concord
162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. California, 1995)