Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 31, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-00249·Unknown

Opinion

LEAH L. JONES, Nev. Bar No. 13161 Natasha Fernández-Silber (Pro Hac Vice)* leah@thiermanbuck.com nfernandezsilber@edelson.com 7287 Lakeside Drive 350 N La Salle Dr., 14th Floor Reno, Nevada 89511 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Tel: 312-589-6370 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 *Admitted in New York and Michigan FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class JAMIE CROOKS, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) (Cont’d) jamie@fairmarklaw.com 1825 7th St NW, #821 WOODBURN AND WEDGE Washington, DC 20001 ELLEN JEAN WINOGRAD, Nev. Bar No. 815 TOWARDS JUSTICE JOSE TAFOYA, Nev. Bar No. 16011 DAVID H. SELIGMAN, ESQ. (Pro Hac 6100 Neil Road, Ste. 500 Vice) Reno, NV 89511 ALEXANDER HOOD, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) ewinograd@woodburnandwedge.com alex@towardsjustice.org Telephone: (775) 688-3000 PO Box 371680, PMB 44465 Facsimile: (775) 688-3088 Denver, CO 80237 Attorneys for Defendant Western Range EDELSON PC Association YAMAN SALAHI, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) ysalahi@edelson.com 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA CIRILO UCHARIMA ALVARADO, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB Situated; PROPOSED STIPULATED Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER v. WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit corporation; ELLISON RANCHING COMPANY, a Nevada corporation; JOHN ESPIL SHEEP CO., INC., a Nevada corporation; F.I.M. CORP., a Nevada corporation; THE LITTLE PARIS COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; HOLLAND RANCH, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; NEED MORE SHEEP CO., LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and FAULKNER LAND AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendants. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order submitted by Plaintiff Cirilo Ucharima Alvarado and Defendants Western Range Association, Ellison Ranching Company, John Espil Sheep Co., Inc., F.I.M. Corp., The Little Paris Sheep Company, LLC, Borda Land & Sheep Company, LLC, Holland Ranch, LLC, Need More Sheep Co., LLC., and Faulkner Land and Livestock Company, Inc. (hereinafter the “Parties”), by which the Parties agree, and the Court finds, pursuant to FRCP 26(c), that good cause exists to support the entry of a protective order over the discovery and dissemination of certain information deemed confidential by one of the Parties. This Stipulated Protective Order will expedite the disclosure of information and production of documents protected by privilege or statutes, preserve the confidentiality of such information, protect privacy interests of the Parties and their employees, and help to avoid potential discovery disputes related to information that is designated confidential. The Court, being fully advised, hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. This Stipulated Protective Order is binding upon all current and Parties to this litigation (including their respective corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns) and their respective counsel, agents, representatives, officers and employees and any others set forth in this Protective Order. A third party that responds to any discovery request or otherwise participates in this Litigation may avail itself of, and agree to be bound by, the terms and conditions of this Protective Order. When conducting discovery from third parties, the parties to this Litigation shall attach a copy of this Protective Order to any discovery request. 2. In this action, at least one of the Parties has sought and/or is seeking Confidential Material (as defined in paragraph 6 below). This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information produced, given, or exchanged by any Party or non-party during discovery, including without limitation, documents produced; answers to interrogatories, requests for admission and/or subpoenas; deposition testimony; and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties assert the disclosure of Confidential Material outside the scope of this litigation could result in significant injury to one or more of the Parties’ business or privacy interests, and could result in significant injury to a third party’s privacy interests, as well as significantly erode the attorney-client privilege. The Parties have entered into this Stipulation and request the Court enter this Protective Order for the purpose of preventing the disclosure and use of Confidential Material except as set forth herein. 3. As used in this Protective Order, “document” is defined as designated in FRCP 34(a)(1)(A). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. 4. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown following notice to all Parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. 5. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent any Party to this agreement from seeking modification of this Order, from objecting to discovery that the party or other person believes to be improper, or from filing a motion with respect to the manner in which Confidential Material shall be treated at trial. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prejudice the right of any party to contest the alleged relevancy, admissibility, or discoverability of confidential documents or information sought. 6. “Confidential Material” means those documents or personal identifying information that one of the Parties in the manner provided in paragraph 16 below, the disclosure of which the designating party believes may implicate the privacy interests of any Party or non-party and/or information contained in confidential business records and communications by the designating party or non-party with possession or custody of such information. Any information designated by a Party or non-party as confidential will first be reviewed by counsel, and designation will be based on a good faith belief that the information is confidential and entitled to protection under the law, including Rule 26. The documents or information so designated shall be deemed “Confidential Material” subject to this Protective Order. Confidential Material does not include information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise. 7. 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 pages of a document which qualify as Confidential Material, in order to avoid sweeping an entire document unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order, where only some pages contain Confidential Material. Indiscriminate designations of confidentiality are inconsistent with this Order. If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation. 8. Confidential Material shall not be disclosed to any person or entity not a party to this lawsuit except as expressly provided herein. Confidential Material shall only be used for purposes of this lit

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

Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association, (D. Nev. 2023).

Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association (Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association) — 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)
Dvc-Jpw Investors v. Norman H. Gershman
5 F.3d 1172 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)