Weslie Martin v. The State of Nevada, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided October 17, 2025·No. 3:21-cv-00365·Unknown

Opinion

Attorney General JAMIE S. HENDRICKSON (Bar No. 12770) Senior Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 (775) 684-1234 (phone) (775) 684-1108 (fax) Email: jhendrickson@ag.nv.gov Attorneys for Defendants William Reubart and Daniel Wheeler WESLIE MARTIN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00365-ART-CSD Plaintiff, STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY v. AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants. The parties to this proposed Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective (Order) Order have agreed to the terms of this Order; accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Scope. All materials produced or adduced from the parties or non-parties in the course of discovery, including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, responses to subpoenas, deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom (hereinafter collectively “documents”), shall be subject to this Order concerning Confidential Information as defined below. This Order is subject to the local rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on matters of procedure and the calculation of time periods. 2. Confidential Information. As used in this Order, “Confidential Information” means information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” by the producing party, after the entry of this Order. Information designed as “Confidential Information” by the producing party must be information that the producing party believes, in good faith, would without limitation, confidential information, private financial information, private medical information, personal identification or employment records. 3. Designation (a) A party may designate a document as Confidential Information for protection under this Order by placing or affixing the words “CONFIDENTIAL” on the document and on all copies in a manner that will not interfere with the legibility of the document. As used in this Order, “copies” includes electronic images, duplicates, extracts, summaries, or descriptions that contain the Confidential Information. The marking “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be applied prior to or at the time of the documents are produced or disclosed. Applying the marking “CONFIDENTIAL” to a document does not mean that the document has any status or protection by statute or otherwise except to the extent and for the purposes of this Order. Any copies that are made of any documents marked “CONFIDENTIAL” shall also be so marked. (b) Limited Third-Party Disclosures of Information Marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” The parties and counsel for the parties shall not disclose or permit the disclosure of any Confidential Information marked “CONFIDENTIAL” to any third person or entity except as set forth below in subparagraphs (1)-(9). Subject to these requirements, the following categories of persons may be allowed to review Information marked “CONFIDENTIAL”: (1) Counsel. Counsel for the parties and employees of counsel who have responsibility for the action; (2) Parties. Individual parties and employees of a party but only to the extent receiving counsel determines in good faith that the employee’s assistance is reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation in which the information is disclosed; (3) The Court and its personnel; /// recorders engaged for depositions; (5) Contractors. Those persons specifically engaged for the limited purpose of making copies of documents or organizing or processing documents, including outside vendors hired to process electronically stored documents; (6) Consultants and Experts. Consultants, investigators, or experts employed by the parties or counsel for the parties to assist in the preparation and trial of this action but only after such persons have completed the certification contained in Attachment A, Acknowledgment of Understanding and Agreement to Be Bound; (7) Witnesses at depositions. During their depositions, witnesses in this action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary. Witnesses shall not retain a copy of documents containing Confidential Information, except witnesses may receive a copy of all exhibits marked at their depositions in connection with review of the transcripts. Pages of transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that are designated as Confidential Information pursuant to the process set out in this Order must be separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this Order. (8) Author or recipient. The author or recipient of the document (not including a person who received the document in the course of litigation); and (9) Others by Consent. Other persons only by written consent of the producing party or upon order of the Court and on such conditions as may be agreed or ordered. this Protective Order shall not be used for any litigation other than the matter in which it is produced. Its confidentiality shall be maintained in a manner such that Plaintiff and/or any other attorney cannot use it in any of Plaintiff’s current or future litigation, it can only be used in connection with 3:21-cv-00365-ART-CSD. It shall not be shared with any other counsel than the parties to the Stipulation and Protective Order. (d) Control of Documents. Counsel for the parties shall make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Confidential Information. Counsel shall maintain the originals of the forms signed by persons acknowledging their obligations under this Order for a period of three years after the termination of the case. 5. Inadvertent Failure to Designate. An inadvertent failure to designate a document as Confidential Information does not, standing alone, waive the right to so designate the document. If a party designates a document as Confidential Information after it was initially produced, the receiving party, on notification of the designation, must make a reasonable effort to assure that the document is treated in accordance with the provisions of this Order. No party shall be found to have violated this Order for failing to maintain the confidentiality of material during a time when that material has not been designated Confidential Information, even where the failure to so designate was inadvertent and where the material is subsequently designated Confidential Information. If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Confidential Information to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Stipulated Protective Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all copies of the Confidential Information, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound by Stipulated Protective Order” (Exhibit A). /// authorize the filing of any document under seal. Any party wishing to file a document designated as Confidential Information in connection with a motion, brief or other submission to the Court must comply with Local Rule IA 10-5 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Nevada. Unless otherwise permitted by statute, rule or prior court order, papers filed with the court under seal shall be accompanied by a contemporaneous motion for leave to file those documents under seal, and shall be filed consistent with the court’s electronic filing procedures in accordance with Local Rule IA 10-5. Notwithstanding any agreement among the parties, the party seeking to file a paper under seal bears the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of public access to papers filed in court. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006); Cen

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

Weslie Martin v. The State of Nevada, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Weslie Martin v. The State of Nevada, et al. (Weslie Martin v. The State of Nevada, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Lowell M. Birrell
447 F.2d 1168 (Second Circuit, 1971)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)