Wells v. The City of Las Vegas

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided December 17, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-01346·Unknown

Opinion

Craig R. Anderson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6882 10001 Park Run Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 Telephone: (702) 382-0711 Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 canderson@maclaw.com Attorneys for Defendants LVMPD, Campbell, Vasquez, Gonzalez, Roman and Lombardo MARCIA WELLS and TEENA ACREE, individually and as Co-Special Administrators of the Estate of Byron Lee Williams, Deceased; Case No.: 2:21-cv-01346-JCM-EJY TINA LEWIS-STEVENSON, individually as an heir; GWENDOLYN LEWIS, individually as an heir; ROBYN WILLIAMS, individually as an heir and DEWAIN LEWIS, individually as an PROTECTIVE ORDER heir, Plaintiffs, vs. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; OFFICER PATRICK CAMPBELL, individually and as an agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; OFFICER BENJAMIN VASQUEZ, individually and as an agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; OFFICER ALEXANDER GONZALEZ, individually and as an agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; OFFICER ROCKY ROMAN, individually and as an agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; and SHERIFF JOE LOMBARDO, as agent of the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Defendants. / / / / / / Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) contends contains private and sensitive information, confidential information of LVMPD, its officers and employees, its internal investigative and administrative actions, and other confidential information. Pursuant to an agreement by the Parties, the Court hereby enters the following Order for Protection (“Protective Order”): The following definitions apply to the Protective Order: 1. Party. Any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, Experts, and Outside Counsel. Party, as used in this Protective Order, shall also refer to LVMPD, and its officers, agents and employees. 2. Disclosure or Discovery Material. All items or information, regardless of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3. “Confidential” Information or Items. Information (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under the law enforcement investigative and/or official information privileges, or that contain Criminal History Information, personal information regarding individuals including Social Security Numbers, dates of birth and information which a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as medical information. Confidential information shall also include information concerning, regarding, or as a result of covert or undercover law enforcement investigation(s) technique(s), method(s) or source(s), including the identity of any confidential informant, undercover officer information, or information referring to any undercover or active criminal investigations. Further, Confidential information shall also include any information protected from disclosure under Donrey v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630 (1990) or an official or executive information privilege. Confidential Information from a Producing Party. 5. Producing Party. A Party or third-party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material or Confidential Information in this action. 6. Designating Party. A Party or third-party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “Confidential.” 7. Protected Material. Any Disclosure or Discovery Material or Confidential Information that is designated as “Confidential.” 8. Outside Counsel. Attorneys who are not employees of a Party but who are retained to represent or advise a Party in this action. 9. House Counsel. Attorneys who are employees of a Party. 10. Counsel (without qualifier). Outside Counsel and House Counsel (as well as their support staffs). 11. Expert. A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. This definition includes, but is not limited to, a professional jury or trial consultant retained in connection with this litigation. 12. Professional Vendor. Person or entity that provides litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, organizing, storing, retrieving data in any form or medium; etc.) and its employees and subcontractors. 13. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural, and vice versa. The protection conferred by this Protective Order covers not only Protected Material, but also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof, testimony, conversations, or presentations by parties or counsel to or in court or in other settings that might reveal Protected Material. Even after the termination of this action, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Protective Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. 1. Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided herein, or as otherwise ordered, material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly designated before it is disclosed or produced. Designations in conformity with this Order require: a. For information in documentary form. That the Producing Party shall affix the legend “Confidential” on each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate makings in the margins or redacting protected portions). A Producing Party that makes original documents or materials available for inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed “Confidential.” After the inspecting Party has identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order, and, before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the appropriate legend on each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriated markings in the margins or by redacting protected portions). b. For testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings. That before the close of the deposition, hearing, or other proceeding, the Party or non-party offering or sponsoring the testimony shall identify on the record all protected testimony and further specify any portions of the testimony that qualify as “Confidential.” When Party or non-party that sponsors, offers, or gives the testimony may invoke on the record (before the deposition or proceeding is concluded) a right to have up to thirty (30) days to identify the specific portions or the testimony as to which protection is sought. Only those portions of the testimony that are appropriately designated for protection under the standards set forth herein within the thirty (30) days shall be covered by the provisions of this Protective Order. Upon request of a Designating Party, transcript pages containing Protected Material must be separately bound by the court reporter, who

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

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

Wells v. The City of Las Vegas (Wells v. The City of Las Vegas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)