Joseph M. Hicks v. City of Santa Barbara et al

Filing 44

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky, re: Stipulation for Protective Order, 42 . (mz)

1
2
3
4
5
6

BRIAN A. VOGEL, SBN 167493
[e-mail]
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC
770 County Square Dr., Ste. 104
Ventura, CA 93003
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff JOSEPH M. HICKS

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, SANTA
)
BARBARA POLICE DEPARTMENT
)
OFFICER JUSTIN CRUZ, an
)
individual, DEPARTMENT OF
)
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
)
OFFICER LUIS MADRIZ, an
)
individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________

Case No. CV 13-9016 FMO (RZx)

JOSEPH M. HICKS, an individual,

[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION

Pursuant to the stipulation of Plaintiff and the State of California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control which is not a party, and good cause being shown therefore,

23
24
25
26
27

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THE FOLLOWING:
1.

The information and items subject to this agreement (“Confidential

Information”) are as follows:
(a)

The State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

28
1

1
2

(“ABC”) personnel file pertaining to Defendant Luis Madriz, including all documents
relating to the history of employment from inception to the present such as job

3
4

application, position job description, performance appraisals, employee development

5

plans, employee self assessments, notes on attendance, performance improvement plan

6

documentation, reports, and employee recognition documents. Defendant Madriz will

7
8
9
10
11

produce these documents with redactions of all information relating to Madriz’s personal
residence information, past and present, as well as personal identifying information such
as Social Security number, and any information relating to his personal relationships
outside of his employment at ABC including with his spouse, family members, friends

12
13

and significant others. Any documents related to any psychological examinations of

14

Madriz as well as any documents related to Madriz’s credit reports are specifically

15

excluded from this stipulation and [proposed] order, and will not be produced.

16

(b)

The ABC Human Resources Department personnel file pertaining

17
18

to Defendant Madriz, including application for employment, W-4 forms, personnel action

19

forms, military leave and deployment records.

20

(c)

Documents referring or relating to education and training the Defendant

21
22
23
24
25

Madriz has received relating to his duties as a law enforcement officer at ABC.
2.

The Confidential Information delineated in the previous paragraph is the

proper subject of a privilege. The Court, therefore, orders that the information and items
are deemed confidential.

26
27
28

3.

The Court may modify the protective order at any time for good cause

shown and upon notice to the affected parties. The parties themselves may further
2

1
2

stipulate to add or delete item or information subject to the protective order, subject to
court approval.

3

4.

4

Defendants’ concerns of privilege and other objections raised in their

5

response and outlines in their privilege logs are adequately protected by this protective

6

order.

7
8
9
10
11

5.

The production of the Confidential Information referenced shall be

subject to the following protections:
(a)

The Confidential Information will be considered confidential

information. This confidential information shall be used solely in connection with this

12
13

case and the preparation and trial of this case, any settlement conference, private

14

mediation or arbitration conducted in connection with this case, or any related appellate

15

proceeding, and not for any other purpose.

16

(b)

The Confidential Information shall not be disclosed by Plaintiff

17
18
19
20

or his attorneys to anyone other than:
(1)

Plaintiff’s attorneys and their staff;

(2)

Any expert or consultant hired or retained by Plaintiff or his

21

attorneys;

22
23

(3)

Any judge or magistrate judge presiding over any aspect of this case;

24

(4)

Any mediator, arbitrator or other settlement officer agreed upon by

25

the parties or appointed to assess and evaluate the dispute for the

26

purposes of settlement negotiation; and

27
28

(5)

The initial and rebuttal expert witnesses designated by the parties
3

1

pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(2), and the persons most knowledgeable

2

designated by ABC, in the course of testifying at a deposition or trial

3

or preparing for such testimony.

4
5
6

(c)

The Confidential Information shall not be provided to news,

television, radio, or placed on the Internet.

7
8
9
10
11

(d)

All persons to whom the Confidential Information is disclosed will

be apprised of the protective order and of its binding nature on all persons connected with
this case.
(e)

To the extent that the Confidential Information is disclosed to a

12
13

witness pursuant to the protective order, the Confidential Information shall be

14

appropriately marked “Confidential Item produced in Hicks v. City of Santa Barbara, et

15

al., United States District Court Case No. CV 13-9016 FMO (RZx), subject to protective

16

order.”
17
18
19
20

6.

All copies of the Confidential Information shall be returned to the

disclosing party within a reasonable time period after the conclusion of this action.
7.

The admissibility of the Confidential Information herein disclosed is not

21
22
23
24
25

conceded, and the parties each have the right to seek exclusion of the Confidential
Information or their existence either in limine or during trial.
8.

Disclosure of the Confidential Information shall be made within ten (10)

days of receipt by Defendants of this signed and conformed order of the Court.

26
27

This protective order shall not govern in connection with dispositive motions or at

28

trial. If protection is desired in connection with those proceedings, a separate application
4

1
2

must be made, and directed to the judicial officer who will preside in connection with
those proceedings.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7
8

Dated: October 17, 2014

_________________________________
Hon. Ralph Zarefsky
United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5