Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 11, 2023·No. 1:20-cv-00770·Unknown

Opinion

1 ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) AGonzalez@mofo.com 2 MATTHEW A. CHIVVIS (CA SBN 251325) MChivvis@mofo.com 3 MEREDITH L. ANGUEIRA (CA SBN 333222) MAngueira@mofo.com 425 Market Street, 5 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 6 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WALTER W. WELLS and SCOTT MCFARLANE 8 11 12 WALTER W. WELLS and SCOTT Case No. 1:20-cv-00770-DJC-BAM MCFARLANE, 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF 16 MODESTO; KIRK BUNCH; JON EVERS; DALE LINGERFELT; STEVE JACOBSON; 17 BIRGIT FLADAGER; and GALEN CARROLL, 18 Defendants. 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 3 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted, 5 including but not limited to: confidential investigative materials related to The People of the State 6 of California v. Frank C. Carson, et al., Stanislaus Superior Court Case No. 1490969; 7 investigation and other law enforcement related records concerning individual parties and 8 witnesses relevant to this case; confidential personnel records of peace officers; confidential 9 official information, including sensitive law enforcement deliberative information; and personal 10 financial, family, employment, and medical information. Accordingly, the parties hereby 11 stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). 12 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 13 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 14 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 15 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 16 that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Rule 141 of the 17 Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sets forth the 18 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 19 permission from the court to file material under seal. 20 2. DEFINITIONS 21 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 22 information or items under this Order. 23 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 24 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 25 of Civil Procedure 26(c), including confidential investigative materials related to The People of 26 the State of California v. Frank C. Carson, et al., Stanislaus Superior Court Case No. 1490969; 27 investigation and other law enforcement related records concerning individual parties and 28 witnesses relevant to this case; confidential personnel records of peace officers; confidential 1 official information, including sensitive law enforcement deliberative information; and personal 2 financial, family, employment, and medical information. 3 2.3 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that 4 it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 5 CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 6 2.4 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 7 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 8 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 9 responses to discovery in this matter. 10 2.5 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 11 the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or 12 as a consultant in this action; (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party; and (3) at the time 13 of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party. 14 2.6 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 15 Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another 16 Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by 17 less restrictive means, including confidential personnel records of peace officers; confidential 18 official information, including sensitive law enforcement deliberative information; and personal 19 financial, family, employment, and medical information. 20 2.7 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 21 entity not named as a Party to this action. 22 2.8 Counsel of Record: attorneys who have appeared in this action on behalf of the 23 party or governmental entity or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that 24 party. 25 2.9 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 26 consultants, retained experts, and Counsel of Record (and their support staff). 27 2.10 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 28 Material in this action. 1 2.11 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 2 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstratives, and 3 organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and 4 subcontractors. 5 2.12 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 6 “CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 7 2.13 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 8 Producing Party. 9 3. SCOPE 10 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined 11 above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, 12 excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, 13 or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the 14 protections conferred by this Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information 15 that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the 16 public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a 17 violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; 18 and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the 19 Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and 20 under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at 21 trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 22 4. DURATION 23 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by 24 this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court 25 order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of: (1) dismissal of all 26 claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after 27 the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, 28 1 including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 2 applicable law. 3 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 4 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.

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

Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus (Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus) — 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)