Charles Craig Clements v. R. Madden et al.

Filing 115

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER RECORDS PURSUANT TO THIRD PARTY REQUEST; PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth re Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion 113 . (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CHARLES CLEMENTS,

12
Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.
R. MADDEN, Warden

16
Respondent.

17
18

Case No. SACV 14-2002-DDP (JPR)
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
REGARDING PRODUCTION OF
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFFCORONER RECORDS PURSUANT TO
THIRD PARTY REQUEST;
PROTECTIVE ORDER

This is a Stipulated Protective Order entered into between Charles Clement

19

(“Petitioner”), R. Madden, (“Respondent”), and third party witness and custodian of records

20

Sandra Hutchens, Sheriff-Coroner for the County of Orange (“the Sheriff”), by and through

21

their attorneys of record.

22
23

GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT
Petitioner has made a production request in a habeas corpus case seeking Sheriff

24

records and information pertaining to two inmates (“Request”). The Petitioner asserts that

25

Petitioner’s access to the requested records for Petitioner’s review are necessary for

26

Petitioner to evaluate claims in his case related to a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

27

The Sheriff asserts that the requested records are confidential jail records as set forth in

28

California Evidence Code section 1043 et seq. and Article 1, section 1 of the California
-1-

1

Constitution. Federal courts have given weight to privacy rights protected by state

2

constitutions or statutes. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal.

3

1995).

4

STIPULATION

5

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between

6

Petitioner, Respondent, and the Sheriff, by and through their attorneys of record, that any

7

confidential Sheriff personnel records and employee information reviewed by the Petitioner

8

and released pursuant to the Subpoena shall be subject to the following:

9

1.

The Protective Order applies to and governs the review by the Petitioner and

10

use of the Sheriff’s confidential personnel records and employee information sought by the

11

Subpoena (“Responsive Records”) or the substance of any portion thereof, and all

12

documents of whatever kind containing information obtained from the confidential

13

employee personnel records;

14

2.

The Responsive Records shall be used solely in connection with Charles

15

Clement v. R. Madden, Case No. SACV 14-2002-DDP (JPR), including any associated state

16

appellate or federal proceedings and collateral review, and not for any other purpose;

17
18
19

3.

The Responsive Records or any portion thereof shall not be disclosed to any

other person, firm or corporation, except:
a.

Bona fide employees of the law offices for the parties’ counsel, and then only

20

to the extent necessary to enable said persons to assist in litigation of this

21

action;

22

b.

Petitioner, to the extent deemed necessary by counsel, but only to the extent

23

that Petitioner may be shown copies of the Responsive Records and under no

24

circumstances shall Petitioner be given copies or permitted to retain such

25

Responsive Records;

26

c.

Expert witnesses employed by the parties to this action;

27

d.

Consultants retained by the parties to this action; or

28

e.

The Court and court personnel.
-2-

1

4.

All persons described in paragraph 3 (a) through (e) above shall not disclose

2

any portion of said Responsive Records and shall not use any information obtained

3

therefrom except in conformance with this Order and for purposes of this litigation. Any

4

party who discloses the Responsive Records to any person described in paragraph 3 (a)

5

through (d) shall advise such person that said matters constitute confidential information

6

which may be used only for the litigation of this action, and shall, prior to disclosure of the

7

Responsive Records, provide said person a copy of this Protective Order. Said person shall

8

agree to be bound by the same and subject to the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to

9

any proceeding related to the enforcement of this Protective Order, including but not limited

10
11

to a proceeding for contempt;
5.

Neither the Responsive Records nor any portion thereof shall be copied or

12

reproduced except where necessary to submit to the Court or as set forth in this Order. If

13

any Responsive Record is required to be filed or lodged with the Court in connection with

14

court proceedings, it shall be done under seal in conformance with all applicable court rules,

15

unless relief from this Order is obtained as set forth in paragraphs 7 and 8, below;

16

6.

The prohibition on the dissemination and disclosure of Responsive Records as

17

contained in this Order will not apply if, upon the written request of a party to this action,

18

the Sheriff’s counsel consents in writing that Responsive Records may be disclosed as

19

requested. Failure to seek such consent would constitute a violation of this Order;

20

7.

This Order is without prejudice to any party seeking relief from the Court to

21

impose further restrictions or to vacate existing restrictions imposed by this Order.

22

However, it is expected that before seeking relief from the Court, a party will first seek

23

relief as set forth in paragraph 7, above. If a party seeks relief from the Court, the party

24

shall do so under Local Rule 37 and provide appropriate written notice served on the

25

Sheriff, through its attorney of record, and all other parties;

26

8.

The production of Responsive Records by the Sheriff pursuant to this Order

27

shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality or privacy right for any

28

future purpose.
-3-

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2

DATED: July 24, 2017

By ________________/s/_________________________
Nilou Panahpour, Federal Public Defender
Attorney(s) for Petitioner, Charles Clement

DATED: July 24, 2017

By _______________/s/__________________________
D. Kevin Dunn, Deputy County Counsel
Attorney(s) for Orange County Sheriff-Coroner

DATED: July 24, 2017

By _________________/s/________________________
Jennifer Jadovitz, Deputy Attorney General
Attorney(s) for, R. Madden, Respondent

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Having reviewed the STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PRODUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER RECORDS PURSUANT
TO THIRD PARTY REQUEST, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE,
paragraphs 1 through 9 of the stipulation shall constitute the Order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 1, 2017

_________________________________________
Honorable Jean P. Rosenbluth
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of the United States employed in the County of
Orange, over 18 years old and that my business address is 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Ste.
407, Santa Ana, California 92701. I am not a party to the within action.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

On July 24, 2017, I served the foregoing STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER
RECORDS PURSUANT TO THIRD PARTY REQUEST; AND [PROPOSED]
PROTECTIVE ORDER on all other parties to this action in the following manner:
Pursuant to L.R. 5-3.2.1, I caused an electronic version of the aforementioned
document to be served on the below listed parties, through their attorneys of record, via the
court’s CM/ECF System.
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made.
Date: July 24, 2017

11
12
13
14
15

________________________________
Marzette L. Lair

Petitioner, Charles Craig Clements:
Represented by Niloufar Panahpour
Federal Public Defender Office
321 East 2nd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4202
213-894-2644
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respondents, R Madden (Warden), and A. Miller (Warden):
Represented by Jennifer A Jadovitz
CAAG - Office of the Attorney General
California Department of Justice
600 West Broadway Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
619-645-2204
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Objector, United States of America:
Represented by Judith A Heinz
AUSA - Office of US Attorney
Criminal Division - US Courthouse
312 North Spring Street 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012-4700
213-894-7280
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]