Darius Gant v. Ron E. Barnes
QUALIFOIED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RON BARNES, Warden,
Case No. CV-14-2618-CJC (SP)
QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court hereby GRANTS Petitioner’s request
for a Qualified Protective Order pertaining to the discovery requests authorized by this
Court’s order granting discovery (Dkt. 57). The parties are ORDERED to abide by the
following agreed upon terms:
The parties shall not use or disclose any “protected health information,” as
defined under The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA), that is received in response to a subpoena issued in this litigation for any
purpose other than litigating Mr. Gant’s post-conviction claims for habeas relief.
Within 60 days of the conclusion of this proceeding, the parties agree to
return or destroy any “protected health information” that is received from an entity
regulated under HIPAA in response to a subpoena issued in this litigation.
The “conclusion of this proceeding” shall occur at the conclusion of all
further appeals arising from this proceeding, including review by the United States
Supreme Court or upon the expiration of time for seeking such review.
The parties stipulate that this order satisfies the requirements for a
“qualified protective order” under 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(ii)(B).
The parties further acknowledge that this Qualified Protective Order does
not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets
forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when
a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal.
It is so ordered.
DATED: May 1, 2017
THE HONORABLE SHERI PYM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
/s/ Michael Parente
Deputy Federal Public Defender
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?