Warren v. Clark County School District

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 7, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01758
StatusUnknown

This text of Warren v. Clark County School District (Warren v. Clark County School District) 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
Warren v. Clark County School District, (D. Nev. 2023).

Opinion

1 MARK E. FERRARIO Nevada Bar No. 01625 2 KARA B. HENDRICKS Nevada Bar No. 07743 3 CHRISTIAN T. SPAULDING 4 Nevada Bar No. 14277 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 5 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 6 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 7 Email: ferrariom@gtlaw.com 8 hendricksk@gtlaw.com spauldingc@gtlaw.com 9 Counsel for Defendants, Clark County School 1 10 1

D istrict, John Anzalone and Marbella Alfonzo 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEVADA 14 E.A., by and through his Guardian ad Litem, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01758-APG-VCF CHRYSTAL WARREN, D.J., by and through 15 his Guardian ad Litem, IRENE JOW; G.L., by and through his Guardian ad Litem, GRACE STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY 16 LACUESTA, AGREEMENT AND [PROPOSED] 17 PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19

20 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JONATHAN CRONIN, JOHN ANZALONE, 21 MARBELLA ALFONZO, DOES 150,

22 Defendants. 23

24 Pursuant to the Stipulation contained herein, by and among counsel for Plaintiffs E.A., by 25 and through his Guardian ad Litem, CHRYSTAL WARREN, D.J., by and through his Guardian 26 ad Litem, IRENE JOW; and G.L., by and through his Guardian ad Litem, GRACE LACUESTA 27 by and through his Guardian Ad Litem (“Plaintiffs”) and counsel of record for Defendants 28 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (“CCSD”), JOHN ANZALONE (“Anzalaone”) and 1 MARBELLA ALFONZO (“Alfonzo”) (collectively, “CCSD Defendants”), the Court hereby 2 finds as follows: 3 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 1. Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 5 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 6 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 7 Accordingly, the Parties hereby jointly stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following 8 Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”). The parties 9 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses 10 to discovery, or any categories of information not specifically addressed herein, and that the 11 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 12 items that are entitled to CONFIDENTIAL treatment under the applicable legal principles, and 13 designated “CONFIDENTIAL” as described herein. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 14 further below, that this Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order does not entitle 15 them to file CONFIDENTIAL information under seal or otherwise change Federal or Local rules, 16 procedures, and standards to be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 17 material under seal. 18 2. The “Litigation” shall mean the above-captioned case, E.A, et al.. v. Clark County 19 School District, et al., filed in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case Number 20 2:22-cv-01758-APG-VCF. 21 3. “Documents” or “Information” shall mean and include any documents (whether in 22 hard copy or electronic form), records, correspondence, analyses, assessments, statements (financial 23 or otherwise), responses to discovery, tangible articles or things, whether documentary or oral, and 24 other information provided, served, disclosed, filed, or produced, whether voluntarily or through 25 discovery or other means, in connection with this Litigation. A draft or non-identical copy is a 26 separate document within the meaning of these terms. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 4. “Party” (or “Parties”) shall mean one party (or all parties) in this Litigation, and their 2 in-house and outside counsel. “Producing Party” shall mean any person or entity who provides, 3 serves, discloses, files, or produces any Documents or Information. “Receiving Party” shall mean any 4 person or entity who receives any such Documents or Information. 5 5. The privacy of students is protected under federal law whether they are parties to the 6 Litigation or not. As a school district that receives federal funding, CCSD is bound by the Family 7 Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and is not at liberty to disclose personally identifying 8 information of its students without written consent or court order. The Parties acknowledge that 9 information that could be reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence in this Litigation could 10 contain information that is protected by FERPA. In addition, personnel files of employees involved 11 in an incident are private in nature. As a result, their use must be limited to protect the individuals’ 12 fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments of 13 the U.S. Constitution. See, El Dorado Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento 14 County, 190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (1987). Accordingly, the Parties agree that, in conjunction with 15 discovery proceedings in this Litigation, the Parties may designate any Document, thing, material, 16 testimony, or other Information derived therefrom, which is entitled to confidential treatment under 17 applicable legal principles, as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of this Confidentiality Agreement 18 and Protective Order (hereinafter “Order”), and that anything designated as such shall not be provided 19 or made available to third parties except as permitted by, and in accordance with, the provisions of 20 this Order. Confidential information includes information that qualifies for confidential treatment 21 under applicable legal principles, which may include information contained in personnel files of 22 CCSD employees and/or information that has not been made public and contains trade secret, 23 proprietary and/or sensitive business or personal information, and/or any (personal) information about 24 students that is protected by FERPA. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 6. In addition, if any Party requests documents or other evidence that are subject to 2 FERPA, the Parties acknowledge that either a motion be filed with the Court to compel the 3 production of the same or the following procedure be followed: 4 a. The Parties will submit a stipulation to the Court identifying the records to 5 be produced and requesting a Court Order approving the notice and disclosure of 6 information; 7 b. Upon receipt of the signed Court Order, CCSD will provide the Order 8 along with a joint letter notifying the affected parties of the right to object to the disclosure 9 of their student’s information. 10 c. Unless the affected party files an objection with the Court within ten (10) 11 days of receipt of notice of the Order, the producing party shall within five (5) days after 12 the expiration of the ten-day time period, produce the information. 13 d. If the affected party or their representative files an objection to disclosure, 14 any party may request that the Court review the objection to determine its validity and/or 15 review the objectionable material at issue in order to make a final determination as to 16 whether such information shall be disclosed. 17 e. The disclosure of FERPA protected information will be marked 18 confidential and produced pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and 19 Protective Order. 20 7. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under 21 this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under 22 the appropriate standards. Indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited. 23 8.

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

Related

El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court
190 Cal. App. 3d 342 (California Court of Appeal, 1987)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Warren v. Clark County School District, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-clark-county-school-district-nvd-2023.