Ramon Alvarez v. Attorney General
Filing
121
PROTECTIVE ORDER *As modified by the Court* by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson re Amended Stipulation for Protective Order 120 . (see document for details) (hr)
Case 8:15-cv-00987-DMG-KS Document 121 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:3973
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
v.
14
15
Case No. 8:15-cv-00987 DMG (KS)
RAMON ALVAREZ,
Petitioner, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,
16
*As modified by the Court*
Respondent.
17
18
I.
INTRODUCTION AND GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT
19
In their Amended Joint Stipulation for Protective Order filed on July 19, 2021
20
(Dkt. No. 120), the parties established good cause for entry of a protective order
21
because discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of third parties’
22
medical records by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
23
(“CDCR”). Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based
24
on the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 116), the following terms of the
25
protective order to which the parties have agreed are adopted, as amended by the
26
Court, as a protective order of this Court (which generally shall govern the pretrial
27
phase of this action).
28
1
Case 8:15-cv-00987-DMG-KS Document 121 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:3974
1
II.
SCOPE OF MATERIAL PROTECTED BY THIS ORDER
2
All documents and information produced by the CDCR during discovery that
3
qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)—including
4
material that is privileged, confidential, and protected by the Health Insurance
5
Portability
6
“CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to this Order, constitute “protected material” under this
7
Order.
and
Accountability
Act—that
are
properly
designated
8
This Order does not govern material filed with the court, submitted as evidence,
9
introduced at trial, or presented in court hearings that are accessible to the public.
10
This Order also does not entitle the parties to file information designated
11
“CONFIDENTIAL” under seal; instead, Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures
12
that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks
13
permission from the court to file material under seal.
14
15
III. DESIGNATION AND INADVERTENT FAILURE TO DESIGNATE
16
Each party or non-party that designates information or items as
17
“CONFIDENTIAL” for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such
18
designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The
19
designating party must designate for protection only those parts of material,
20
documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other
21
portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection
22
is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. If timely
23
corrected, an inadvertent failure to designate qualified information or items does not,
24
standing alone, waive the designating party’s right to secure protection under this
25
Order for such material.
26
\\
27
\\
28
\\
2
Case 8:15-cv-00987-DMG-KS Document 121 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:3975
1
IV. CHALLEGING A DESIGNATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY
2
Any party or non-party who wishes to challenge a designation of confidentiality
3
shall initiate the dispute resolution process under Local Rule 37.1. The burden of
4
establishing the propriety of a designation of confidentiality shall be on the
5
designating party.
6
7
V.
ACCESS TO, USE OF, AND DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL
8
Neither party may disclose or disseminate material that is protected under this
9
Order, nor communicate any information contained therein or derived directly or
10
indirectly therefrom, to any third party other than the following: counsel assigned to
11
litigate this case; persons working under their direct supervision; and the court and
12
its personnel.
13
Material protected by this Order may not be used or disseminated for any
14
purpose other than the litigation, settlement, or appeal of this case without prior
15
authorization of this Court. However, nothing in this Order should be construed as
16
authorizing a party in this action to disobey a lawful directive from another court.
17
18
VI. FILING UNDER SEAL
19
This Order does not entitle the parties to file information designated
20
“CONFIDENTIAL” under seal. Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must
21
be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission
22
from the court to file material under seal.
23
24
VII. FINAL DISPOSITION OF THIS ACTION
25
This protective order shall remain in effect through the final disposition of this
26
Action. The final disposition of this Action is defined as the conclusion of any
27
litigation and appeal proceedings related to Petitioner’s federal Petition for Writ of
28
Habeas Corpus, or, if no appeal is taken, when the time for filing of an appeal has
3
Case 8:15-cv-00987-DMG-KS Document 121 Filed 07/20/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:3976
1
run. Within 60 days after the final disposition of this Action, the protected material
2
and information (including any copies of confidential health information) shall be
3
returned to CDCR or destroyed. Notwithstanding, counsel are entitled to retain an
4
archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing
5
transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert
6
reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product even if such
7
materials contain protected material. Any such archival copies that contain or
8
constitute protected material remain subject to this protective order.
9
10
For good cause shown, IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13
14
Dated: July 20, 2021
___________________________________
KAREN L. STEVENSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?