Woolley v. Welch

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 19, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-00191·Unknown

Opinion

KNeEvNadNaE BTaHr N Eo. .L 7Y07O1N , III KNeAvTadHaE BRaIrN NEo .F 6.2 P2A7 RKS LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH E. LYON, III THORNDAL ARMSTRONG, PC 333 Flint Street 6590 S. McCarran Blvd., Ste B Reno, Nevada 89501 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775.786.4188 Telephone: 775.786.2882 Email: ken@lyonlaw.net Email: kfp@thorndal.com Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Storey Defendants Nevada Bar No. 3197 Reno City Attorney 505 Ridge Street Deputy City Attorney Reno, Nevada 89501 Nevada Bar No. 10181 Telephone: 775.785.9166 Email: parkerh@reno.gov Email: john@rhcplaw.com PETER K. KEEGAN Deputy City Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff Nevada Bar No. 12237 Email: keeganp@reno.gov Post Office Box 1900 Reno, Nevada 89505 Telephone: 775.334.2050 Attorneys for Reno Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA TYLER WOOLLEY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:25-cv-00191-MMD-CSD JOSEPH WELCH, JACOB SMILEY, ERIC KERN, TERRY WEST, STOREY STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, THE CITY OF RENO, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada. Defendants. Plaintiff Tyler Woolley, by and through his counsel, Kenneth E. Lyon, III, and John Routsis; Defendants Joseph Welch, Jacob Smiley, Eric Kern, and Storey County, by and through their counsel, Katherine F. Parks; and Defendants Terry West and the City of Reno, by and through their counsel, Holly S. Parker and Peter K. Keegan (collectively “the Parties”), hereby agree and stipulate to the entry of a Protective Order as follows: 1. Reason for the Order: The Parties have requested or may request production of documentation that the Parties contend includes confidential information or highly personal private information, including but not limited to Internal Affairs files, photographs, employment records, personnel records, medical records, and possibly other documentation that the Parties would object to production of as confidential and private documentation, or for which they may seek a protective order, if the documentation described herein were not protected by this Stipulated Protective Order. The purpose of this Stipulated Protective Order is to facilitate the Parties in the discovery process. However, the mere existence of this Protective Order does not waive the Parties’ right to object to production and redact certain documentation or information. If any such objection is made and the Parties are unable to agree, the production or protection of the documentation or information shall be submitted to the Court for review and decision concerning production or protection. 2. Any Party may designate as “confidential” (by stamping the relevant page or as otherwise set forth herein) any document or response to discovery which that party considers in good faith to contain information involving business, financial, employment, certain investigative and/or Internal Affairs information, or other confidential or protected information, subject to protection under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Nevada law (“Confidential Information”). Where a document or response consists of more than one page, the first page and each page on which confidential information appears shall be designated. 3. A party may designate information disclosed during a deposition or in response to written discovery as “confidential” by so indicating in said response or on the record at the deposition and requesting the preparation of a separate transcript of such material. Additionally, a party may designate in writing, within twenty (20) days after receipt of said responses or of the deposition transcript for which the designation is proposed, that specific pages of the transcript and/or specific responses be treated as Confidential Information. Any other party may object to such proposal, in writing or on record. Upon such objection, the Parties shall follow the procedures described in paragraph 8 below. After any designation made according to the procedure set forth in this paragraph, the designated documents or information shall be treated according to the designation until the matter is resolved according to the procedures described in paragraph 9 below, and counsel for all parties shall be responsible for making all previously unmarked copies of the designated material in their possession or control with the specified designation. The documents subject to the claim of confidentiality shall be identified either by clearly describing the document or by referring to the document by its Bates-stamp numbers, (e.g., COR-0000). 4. All Confidential Information produced or exchanged in the course of this case shall be used by the Parties to whom the information is produced solely for the purpose of this case. 5. Except with the prior written consent of other parties, or upon prior order of this Court obtained upon notice to opposing counsel, Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to any person other than: a. Counsel for the respective parties to this litigation, including in-house counsel and co-counsel retained for this litigation; b. Employees of such counsel; c. Individual defendants, any officer or employee of a Party, to the extent deemed necessary by counsel for the prosecution or defense of this litigation; d. Consultants or expert witnesses retained for the prosecution or defense of this litigation, provided that each such person shall execute a copy of the Certification attached to this Order as Exhibit “A” (which shall be retained by counsel to the party so disclosing the Confidential Information and made available for inspection by opposing counsel during the pendency of the action) before being shown or given any Confidential Information. e. Any authors or recipients of the Confidential Information; f. The Court, Court personnel, and court reporters; and g. Witnesses (other than persons described in paragraph 4(e)). If a witness is shown Confidential Information outside of a deposition or at trial, the witness shall sign the Certification attached as Exhibit “A” before being shown Confidential Information. If the witness is shown Confidential Information during a deposition, the witness is not required to sign the Certification attached as Exhibit “A”; however, the attorneys for the Parties attending the deposition will inform the witness that the information has been designated as confidential. Witnesses shown Confidential Information shall not be allowed to retain copies. h. Any mediator(s) or settlement officer(s) mutually agreed upon by the parties. i. Employees of discovery or copy services, microfilming or database services, trial support firms and/or translators or other litigation support vendors who are engaged by the Parties during this litigation. 6. Any persons receiving Confidential Information shall not reveal or discuss such information to or with any person who is not entitled to receive such information, except as set forth herein. 7. 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); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). 8. A party may designate as “Confidential” documents or discovery materials produced by a non-party by providing written notice to all parties of the relevant document numbers or other identification within thirty (30) days aft

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

Woolley v. Welch, (D. Nev. 2025).

Woolley v. Welch (Woolley v. Welch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Lowell M. Birrell
447 F.2d 1168 (Second Circuit, 1971)