Joshua Snyder v. Riverside County et al

Filing 73

PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca)

1 ARTHUR K. CUNNINGHAM, SB# 97506
E-Mail: [e-mail]
2 STEPHANIE J. TANADA, SB# 257769
E-Mail: [e-mail]
3 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
650 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 600
4 San Bernardino, California 92408
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: 909.387.1138
6 CHRISTOPHER D. LOCKWOOD, SB# 110853
E-Mail: [e-mail]
7 Arias & Lockwood, Attorneys at Law
1881 S. Business Center Drive, Suite 9A
8 San Bernardino, California 92408
Telephone: [phone]
9 Facsimile: 909.890.0185
10 Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE and STAN
11 SNIFF
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

14
15

JOSHUA SNYDER,

16
17

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-CV-00817-DSF (SP)
PROTECTIVE ORDER

vs.

18

RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
19 et al.,
Defendants.

20
21
22

In order to protect the confidentiality of documents and information while still

23 allowing necessary discovery, the court orders as follows:
24

1. Documents and information that potentially can jeopardize jail security is

25 subject to a qualified privilege and should not be provided in discovery except
26 pursuant to a pursuant to a tightly drawn protective order. Fourhorn v. City and
27 County of Denver, 261 F.R.D. 564 (D. Col. 2009); Castle v. Jallah, 12 F.R.D. 618

LEWI
S

BRISBOI
S

BISGAAR

28 (E.D. Va. 1992); Clark v. Louisiana, 2014 WL 5586416 (M.D. La. 2014); Walker v.
4836-0417-1084.1

(PROPOSED) PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 Wall, 2010 WL 4903825 (D. R.I. 2010). See also Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d
2 1080, 1104 (9th Cir. 1080) (“Courts must accord wide-ranging deference to prison
3 administrators ‘in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their
4 judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain
5 institutional security.’ [Citation]”).
6

2. Defendants may designate specific documents or specific types of

7 information as confidential. Any document and information so designated shall be
8 subject to the terms of this Protective Order. The documents and information so
9 designated shall be limited to documents and information which are important to jail
10 security.
11

3. Absent a further stipulation or court order, any documents and information

12 designated as confidential shall not be conveyed, transferred, published, distributed,
13 copied, duplicated or disseminated except as follows:
14

(a) To Plaintiff.

15

(b) To attorneys licensed to practice in the State of California and to

16 recognized expert witnesses, and their staff.
17

4. Prior to the dissemination of any such documents or information pursuant

18 to this Protective Order, Plaintiff shall provide such person a copy of this Protective
19 Order and secure such person’s agreement in writing to be bound by it.
20

5. The usual protective order for these types of documents and information is

21 an attorney and expert only order. See Trujillo v. Jacquez, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis
22 113850, 12 (N.D. Cal. 2014; Parrish v. Solis, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75513, 14 (N.D.
23 Cal. 2014) (same); Narog v. City of Redwood City, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 59435, 9
24 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (same); Wayne v. Kirk, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17692, *34 (N.D.
25 Ill. 2016) (HIPAA); Koester v. YMCA of Greater St. Louis, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis
26 68886, *4 (E.D. Mo. 2015). With a pro se plaintiff, that is obviously impossible, but
27 the reasons for that type of order still apply. Allowing other inmates who could be

LEWI
S

BRISBOI
S

BISGAAR

28 transferred to County jails in the future to obtain information concerning jail
4836-0417-1084.1

2

(PROPOSED) PROTECTIVE ORDER

1 security issues could jeopardize jail security. Plaintiff is allowed to view documents
2 and written information subject to this protective order under the supervision of
3 custody staff, but is not allowed to keep the documents in his cell. Plaintiff is
4 expressly prohibited from showing the documents to any other inmate and is
5 expressly prohibited from discussing the contents of the documents or the
6 information subject to this protective order with any other inmate.
7

6. Plaintiff is precluded from using the documents or information obtained

8 from the documents except for the purposes of litigating the present lawsuit.
9

7. At the conclusion of this lawsuit, any documents provided pursuant to this

10 Protective Order shall be returned to counsel for Defendants.
11

8. Any document that has been designated as confidential pursuant to this

12 Protective Order shall be filed with the Court only with an application under Local
13 Civil Rule 79-5.1 to file it under seal, unless there has been a prior stipulation or
14 order designating the document as non-confidential. Any information obtained from
15 documents that have been designated as confidential pursuant to this
16 Protective Order shall be filed with the Court only with an application under Local
17 Civil Rule 79-5.1 to file it under seal, unless there has been a prior stipulation or
18 order designating the document as non-confidential.
19

9. The parties may stipulate that any document which was initially designated

20 as confidential and subject to this Protective Order is not confidential and not
21 subject to this Protective Order. If a stipulation cannot be reached, Plaintiff may
22 apply to the Court for an order that a document which was designated as
23 confidential and subject to this Protective Order is not confidential and not subject
24 to this Protective Order. Any such application to the Court must be filed with an
25 application under Local Civil Rule 79-5.1 to file under seal any document or item of
26 information designated as confidential, with the contents not disclosed publicly,
27 unless and until the Court rules that the document is not subject to the Protective

LEWI
S

BRISBOI
S

BISGAAR

28 Order.
4836-0417-1084.1

3

(PROPOSED) PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

10. If Defendants believe that the provisions of this Protective Order have

2 been violated, Defendants may apply to the Court for an order seeking monetary
3 sanctions, evidence sanctions, or other appropriate relief.
4

11. This Protective Order shall survive the final termination of this action, to

5 the extent that the documents and information disclosed remain confidential and do
6 not become known to the public, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to assess
7 monetary sanctions or other relief and to resolve any dispute concerning the use of
8 the documents and information disclosed pursuant to this Protective Order.
9 DATED: July 25, 2017
10
11
Hon. Sheri Pym
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

LEWI
S

BRISBOI
S

BISGAAR

28
4836-0417-1084.1

4

(PROPOSED) PROTECTIVE ORDER