Stanley Weaver, III v. State of Nevada ex. rel. Division of Public and Behavioral Health of the Department of Human Services (f/k/a Department of Health and Human Services); Cody Phinney; Richard Whitley; and, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 24, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-01250·Unknown

Opinion

1 MARGARET A. MCLETCHIE, Nevada Bar No. 10931 LEO S. WOLPERT, Nevada Bar No. 12658 21 MCLETCHIE LAW GROUP, PLLC 3 {602 South Tenth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 4 | | Telephone: (702) 728-5300; Fax: (702) 425-8220 Email: maggie@nvlitigation.com Counsel for Plaintiff 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 STANLEY WEAVER, III, an individual, Case. No.: 2:26-cv-01250-DJA 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER STATE OF NEVADA ex. rel. DIVISION OF PUBLIC AND BEHAVIORAL 13|]|HEALTH of the DEPARTMENT OF 5 14 HUMAN SERVICES (f/k/a | As amended on pages 6 and 10 Be = DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 15 | |HUMAN SERVICES); CODY PHINNEY, 2% individually; RICHARD WHITLEY, = — individually; LAS VEGAS DEPARTMENT; KEVIN MCMAHILL, in 18 his official capacity; DOE DEFENDANTS 19 1-10, 12-20; ROE ENTITIES 1-10, 20 Defendants. Plaintiff STANLEY WEAVER, III and Defendants STATE OF NEVADA ex. rel. DIVISION OF PUBLIC AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH of the DEPARTMENT OF 23 HUMAN SERVICES (f/k/a DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES); 4 CODY PHINNEY; RICHARD WHITLEY; and, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 5 DEPARTMENT, by and through their respective counsel, having agreed to the following %6 and for good cause under Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS 7 HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 28

1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS. 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of 3 | |confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 | |disclosure may be warranted under Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5| |The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 6 | |disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends to only the 7 {limited information or items that are entitled under law to treatment as confidential. 8 2. SCOPE. 9 All documents produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery 10 | |requests, all deposition testimony and exhibits, responses to subpoenas from third parties Jand any other materials which may be subject to discovery (hereinafter collectively 12 | |“Discovery Material”) shall be subject to this stipulated protective order concerning 13 | |confidential information as set forth below.. Any party, or any third party who produces : 14 | |documents in this litigation, may designate documents as Confidential but only after review 15 | |of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined that the documents 16 | |contain “Confidential Information,” as defined below, and pursuant to the procedure set 17 | |forth below. 18 3. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 19 “Confidential Information” shall mean information meriting special protection 20 junder the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law. Confidential Information does not include information that (a) is in the public domain at the time of 22 | |disclosure; (b) becomes part of the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; 23 | |(c) the Receiving Party can show was in its rightful and lawful possession at the time of 24 | |disclosure; or (d) the Receiving Party lawfully receives from a Non-party later without 25 | |restriction as to disclosure. 26 27 28

1 4. OTHER DEFINITIONS. 2 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, agents, and 3 Jattorney(s) of record for a Party in this action (including their associates, paralegals, and 4 | |support/ clerical staff). 5 Non-party: any individual, corporation, association, or natural person or entity 6 jother than a party. 7 Protected Material: any Discovery Material containing Confidential Information 8 {that is designated by a Party or Non-party as “CONFIDENTIAL,” unless the Receiving 9 | |Party challenges the confidentiality designation and (a) the Court decides such material is 10 {not entitled to protection as confidential; (b) the Designating Party fails to apply the Court 11 | |for an order designating the material confidential within the time period specified below; or 12 | |(c) the Designating Party withdraws its confidentiality designation in writing. 13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-party that produces Discovery Material in this 14 Jaction. 5 15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 16 Designating Party: a Party or Non-party that designates Discovery Material as 17 | |“CONFIDENTIAL”. The Party or Non-party designating information or items as Protected 18 | |Material bears the burden of establishing good cause for the confidentiality of all such items. 19 Challenging Party: a party that elects to initiate a challenge to a Designating 20 | |Party’s confidentiality designation. 21 Confidentiality Log: a Confidentiality Log must accompany any production of 22 | |documents designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” that includes the Bates numbers of the 23 | |documents designated (or the portions thereof) as “Confidential” and the basis for doing so. 24 | |Each Producing Party shall keep this log cumulatively and re-produce it every time they 25 | |designate something as “CONFIDENTIAL” so that it is a cumulative record of what the 26 | |party has marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” 27 28

1 5. FORM AND TIMING OF DESIGNATION. 2 Protected Material shall be so designated by the Producing Party by placing or 3 jaffixing the word “CONFIDENTIAL” on the document in a manner which will not interfere 4] {with the legibility of the document, and which will permit complete removal of the 5 | |“Confidential” designation. A Confidentiality Log must accompany any production of 6 | |Protected Material that includes the Bates numbers of the documents designated (or portions 7 | |thereof) as “CONFIDENTIAL” and the basis for doing so. Documents shall be designated 8 | |“Confidential” prior to, or contemporaneously with, the production or disclosure of the documents. The designation of documents as “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be accompanied 10 | |with a Confidentiality Log in the form included at Exhibit A. 11 A Designating Party must exercise restraint and make good faith efforts to limit 12 | |CONFIDENTIAL designations to specific materials that qualify for protection under the 13 | |appropriate standard. Further, a Designating Party must use good faith efforts to designate 14| |for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or communications that 15 | |qualify—so that other portions of the materials, documents, items, or communications for 16 | |which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. 17 | |If only a portion or portions of materials on a page or within a document merit protection, a 18 | |Producing Party must so indicate by making appropriate markings in the margins but not 19 jover text. The accompanying log should clearly explain which portion is designated as 20 | |CONFIDENTIAL. 21 A Producing Party that makes original documents or materials available for 22 | |inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has 23 | |indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and 24 | |before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed 25 | |“Confidential.” After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants copied and 26 | |produced, the Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof, 27 | |qualify for protection under this Order, and, before producing the specified documents, the 28

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

Stanley Weaver, III v. State of Nevada ex. rel. Division of Public and Behavioral Health of the Department of Human Services (f/k/a Department of Health and Human Services); Cody Phinney; Richard Whitley; and, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, (D. Nev. 2026).

Stanley Weaver, III v. State of Nevada ex. rel. Division of Public and Behavioral Health of the Department of Human Services (f/k/a Department of Health and Human Services); Cody Phinney; Richard Whitley; and, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Stanley Weaver, III v. State of Nevada ex. rel. Division of Public and Behavioral Health of the Department of Human Services (f/k/a Department of Health and Human Services); Cody Phinney; Richard Whitley; and, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety
137 S. Ct. 38 (Supreme Court, 2016)