White v. Sacramento Police Dept.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 29, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-02211·Unknown

Opinion

1 5 MEGAN WHITE, et al., 6 No. 2:21-cv-2211 JAM DB Plaintiffs, v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 8

et al., 10 Defendant. 11

12 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 13 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 14 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 15 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 16 the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 17 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 18 or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 19 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 20 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 21 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 22 Local Rules 140 and 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 23 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 24 2. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 26 information or items under this Order. 27 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 1 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 26(c), which may include, but is not limited to, protected health information, 3 information pertaining to an individual’s disability, social security numbers, date and place of birth, 4 or addresses. Confidential Information further includes any information that is confidential as a 5 matter of law, whether common law, statutory, or regulatory. 6 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 7 as their support staff). 8 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 9 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 11 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 12 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 13 discovery in this matter. 14 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 15 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 16 consultant in this action. 17 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel 18 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 19 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 20 entity not named as a Party to this action. 21 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action 22 but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on 23 behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 24 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 25 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 26 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 27 Material in this action. 1 photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, 2 storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 3 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 4 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 5 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 6 Producing Party. 7 3. SCOPE 8 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as 9 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all 10 copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 11 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 12 However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following 13 information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving 14 Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of 15 publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record 16 through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the 17 disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the 18 information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of 19 Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 20 4. DURATION 21 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 22 Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order 23 otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 24 defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion 25 and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the 26 time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 27 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 1 Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to 2 limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The 3 Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or 4 oral or written communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents, 5 items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within 6 the ambit of this Order. 7 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown 8 to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily 9 encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on 10 other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions. 11 If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for 12 protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other Parties 13 that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation. 14 5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order (see, 15 e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or 16 Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated 17 before the material is disclosed or produced. 18 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: 19 (a) For information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but 20 excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing Party 21 affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” to each page that contains protected material. If only a portion 22 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 23 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

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

White v. Sacramento Police Dept., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

White v. Sacramento Police Dept. (White v. Sacramento Police Dept.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)