Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedAugust 31, 2023
Docket3:22-cv-00249
StatusUnknown

This text of Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association (Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

1 THIERMAN BUCK LLP EDELSON PC LEAH L. JONES, Nev. Bar No. 13161 Natasha Fernández-Silber (Pro Hac Vice)* 2 leah@thiermanbuck.com nfernandezsilber@edelson.com 7287 Lakeside Drive 350 N La Salle Dr., 14th Floor 3 Reno, Nevada 89511 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Tel: 312-589-6370 4 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 *Admitted in New York and Michigan 5 FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class JAMIE CROOKS, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) (Cont’d) 6 jamie@fairmarklaw.com 1825 7th St NW, #821 WOODBURN AND WEDGE 7 Washington, DC 20001 ELLEN JEAN WINOGRAD, Nev. Bar No. 815 8 TOWARDS JUSTICE JOSE TAFOYA, Nev. Bar No. 16011 DAVID H. SELIGMAN, ESQ. (Pro Hac 6100 Neil Road, Ste. 500 9 Vice) Reno, NV 89511 ALEXANDER HOOD, ESQ. (Pro Hac 10 Vice) ewinograd@woodburnandwedge.com alex@towardsjustice.org Telephone: (775) 688-3000 11 PO Box 371680, PMB 44465 Facsimile: (775) 688-3088 Denver, CO 80237 12 Attorneys for Defendant Western Range EDELSON PC Association 13 YAMAN SALAHI, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) ysalahi@edelson.com 14 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative 16 Class 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 19 CIRILO UCHARIMA ALVARADO, On 20 Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB Situated; 21 ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED STIPULATED 22 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 23 v. 24 WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, a 25 California non-profit corporation; ELLISON RANCHING COMPANY, a Nevada 26 corporation; JOHN ESPIL SHEEP CO., INC., a Nevada corporation; F.I.M. CORP., a 27 Nevada corporation; THE LITTLE PARIS 1 COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; HOLLAND RANCH, LLC, a 2 Nevada limited liability company; NEED MORE SHEEP CO., LLC, a Nevada limited 3 liability company; and FAULKNER LAND 4 AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation, 5 Defendants. 6 7 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated 8 Protective Order submitted by Plaintiff Cirilo Ucharima Alvarado and Defendants Western 9 Range Association, Ellison Ranching Company, John Espil Sheep Co., Inc., F.I.M. Corp., The 10 Little Paris Sheep Company, LLC, Borda Land & Sheep Company, LLC, Holland Ranch, LLC, 11 Need More Sheep Co., LLC., and Faulkner Land and Livestock Company, Inc. (hereinafter the 12 “Parties”), by which the Parties agree, and the Court finds, pursuant to FRCP 26(c), that good 13 cause exists to support the entry of a protective order over the discovery and dissemination of 14 certain information deemed confidential by one of the Parties. This Stipulated Protective Order 15 will expedite the disclosure of information and production of documents protected by privilege 16 or statutes, preserve the confidentiality of such information, protect privacy interests of the 17 Parties and their employees, and help to avoid potential discovery disputes related to 18 information that is designated confidential. The Court, being fully advised, hereby ORDERS as 19 follows: 20 GENERAL PROVISIONS 21 1. This Stipulated Protective Order is binding upon all current and Parties to this litigation 22 (including their respective corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns) and 23 their respective counsel, agents, representatives, officers and employees and any others set 24 forth in this Protective Order. A third party that responds to any discovery request or 25 otherwise participates in this Litigation may avail itself of, and agree to be bound by, the terms 26 and conditions of this Protective Order. When conducting discovery from third parties, the 27 parties to this Litigation shall attach a copy of this Protective Order to any discovery request. 1 2. In this action, at least one of the Parties has sought and/or is seeking Confidential 2 Material (as defined in paragraph 6 below). This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, 3 materials, and information produced, given, or exchanged by any Party or non-party during 4 discovery, including without limitation, documents produced; answers to interrogatories, 5 requests for admission and/or subpoenas; deposition testimony; and other information disclosed 6 pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 The Parties assert the disclosure of Confidential Material outside the scope of this litigation 8 could result in significant injury to one or more of the Parties’ business or privacy interests, and 9 could result in significant injury to a third party’s privacy interests, as well as significantly 10 erode the attorney-client privilege. The Parties have entered into this Stipulation and request the 11 Court enter this Protective Order for the purpose of preventing the disclosure and use of 12 Confidential Material except as set forth herein. 13 3. As used in this Protective Order, “document” is defined as designated in FRCP 14 34(a)(1)(A). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this 15 term. 16 4. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown 17 following notice to all Parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. 18 5. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prevent any Party to this agreement from seeking 19 modification of this Order, from objecting to discovery that the party or other person believes 20 to be improper, or from filing a motion with respect to the manner in which Confidential 21 Material shall be treated at trial. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prejudice the right of 22 any party to contest the alleged relevancy, admissibility, or discoverability of confidential 23 documents or information sought. 24 25 26 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 27 6. “Confidential Material” means those documents or personal identifying information that 1 one of the Parties in the manner provided in paragraph 16 below, the disclosure of which the 2 designating party believes may implicate the privacy interests of any Party or non-party and/or 3 information contained in confidential business records and communications by the designating 4 party or non-party with possession or custody of such information. Any information 5 designated by a Party or non-party as confidential will first be reviewed by counsel, and 6 designation will be based on a good faith belief that the information is confidential and entitled 7 to protection under the law, including Rule 26. The documents or information so designated 8 shall be deemed “Confidential Material” subject to this Protective Order. Confidential 9 Material does not include information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a 10 Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party 11 as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of 12 the public record through trial or otherwise. 13 7. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or 14 Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care 15 to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. 16 The Designating Party must designate for protection only those pages of a document which 17 qualify as Confidential Material, in order to avoid sweeping an entire document unjustifiably 18 within the ambit of this Order, where only some pages contain Confidential Material. 19 Indiscriminate designations of confidentiality are inconsistent with this Order.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ucharima-alvarado-v-western-range-association-nvd-2023.