Wells v. The City of Las Vegas

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedDecember 17, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-01346
StatusUnknown

This text of Wells v. The City of Las Vegas (Wells v. The City of Las Vegas) 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
Wells v. The City of Las Vegas, (D. Nev. 2021).

Opinion

Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 6882 10001 Park Run Drive 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 4 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com 5 Attorneys for Defendants LVMPD, Campbell, Vasquez, Gonzalez, Roman and Lombardo 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 MARCIA WELLS and TEENA ACREE, individually and as Co-Special Administrators of 9 the Estate of Byron Lee Williams, Deceased; Case No.: 2:21-cv-01346-JCM-EJY TINA LEWIS-STEVENSON, individually as an 10 heir; GWENDOLYN LEWIS, individually as an heir; ROBYN WILLIAMS, individually as an 11 heir and DEWAIN LEWIS, individually as an PROTECTIVE ORDER heir, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 15 DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; OFFICER PATRICK 16 CAMPBELL, individually and as an agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las 17 Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; OFFICER BENJAMIN VASQUEZ, individually 18 and as an agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 19 Department; OFFICER ALEXANDER GONZALEZ, individually and as an agent of the 20 City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; 21 OFFICER ROCKY ROMAN, individually and as an agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark 22 County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; and SHERIFF JOE LOMBARDO, 23 as agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 24 Department, 25 Defendants. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 2 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) contends contains private and sensitive 3 information, confidential information of LVMPD, its officers and employees, its internal 4 investigative and administrative actions, and other confidential information. Pursuant to an 5 agreement by the Parties, the Court hereby enters the following Order for Protection (“Protective 6 Order”): 7 TERMS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 8 I. DEFINITIONS 9 The following definitions apply to the Protective Order: 10 1. Party. Any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 11 consultants, Experts, and Outside Counsel. Party, as used in this Protective Order, shall also 12 refer to LVMPD, and its officers, agents and employees. 13 2. Disclosure or Discovery Material. All items or information, regardless of the 14 medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 15 transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 16 discovery in this matter. 17 3. “Confidential” Information or Items. Information (regardless of how generated, 18 stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under the law enforcement 19 investigative and/or official information privileges, or that contain Criminal History Information, 20 personal information regarding individuals including Social Security Numbers, dates of birth and 21 information which a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as medical 22 information. Confidential information shall also include information concerning, regarding, or 23 as a result of covert or undercover law enforcement investigation(s) technique(s), method(s) or 24 source(s), including the identity of any confidential informant, undercover officer information, or 25 information referring to any undercover or active criminal investigations. Further, Confidential 26 information shall also include any information protected from disclosure under Donrey v. 27 Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630 (1990) or an official or executive information privilege. 28 2 Confidential Information from a Producing Party. 3 5. Producing Party. A Party or third-party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 4 Material or Confidential Information in this action. 5 6. Designating Party. A Party or third-party that designates information or items 6 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “Confidential.” 7 7. Protected Material. Any Disclosure or Discovery Material or Confidential 8 Information that is designated as “Confidential.” 9 8. Outside Counsel. Attorneys who are not employees of a Party but who are 10 retained to represent or advise a Party in this action. 11 9. House Counsel. Attorneys who are employees of a Party. 12 10. Counsel (without qualifier). Outside Counsel and House Counsel (as well as their 13 support staffs). 14 11. Expert. A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent 15 to the litigation retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant 16 in this action. This definition includes, but is not limited to, a professional jury or trial consultant 17 retained in connection with this litigation. 18 12. Professional Vendor. Person or entity that provides litigation support services 19 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, organizing, 20 storing, retrieving data in any form or medium; etc.) and its employees and subcontractors. 21 13. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural, and vice versa. 22 II. SCOPE 23 The protection conferred by this Protective Order covers not only Protected Material, but 24 also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies excerpts, summaries, or 25 compilations thereof, testimony, conversations, or presentations by parties or counsel to or in 26 court or in other settings that might reveal Protected Material. 27 28 2 Even after the termination of this action, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 3 Protective Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a 4 court order otherwise directs. 5 IV. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 6 1. Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided herein, or as 7 otherwise ordered, material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly 8 designated before it is disclosed or produced. Designations in conformity with this Order 9 require: 10 a. For information in documentary form. That the Producing Party 11 shall affix the legend “Confidential” on each page that contains Protected Material. If only a 12 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 13 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate makings in the 14 margins or redacting protected portions). A Producing Party that makes original documents or 15 materials available for inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting 16 Party has indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and 17 before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed 18 “Confidential.” After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants copied and 19 produced, the Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for 20 protection under this Order, and, before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party 21 must affix the appropriate legend on each page that contains Protected Material. If only a 22 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 23 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriated markings in the 24 margins or by redacting protected portions). 25 b. For testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial 26 proceedings.

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

Related

Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw
798 P.2d 144 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wells v. The City of Las Vegas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-the-city-of-las-vegas-nvd-2021.