Willis, et al. v. City Of Fresno, et al.

Filing 70

PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/24/2011. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4

James D. Weakley, Esq.
Roy C. Santos, Esq.

Bar No. 082853
Bar No. 259718

WEAKLEY & ARENDT LLP
1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176
Fresno, California 93710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, CHIEF JERRY DYER, OFFICER GREG CATTON
and OFFICER DANIEL ASTACIO

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF FRESNO, OFFICER GREG
CATTON, OFFICER DANIEL ASTACIO, )
CHIEF JERRY DYER, and DOES 1 through )
)
50 inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________________ )

CHRIS WILLIS, MARY WILLIS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST TO STEPHEN WILLIS;
JENNAFER URIBE,

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01766-LJO-DLB
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE
ORDER AUTHORIZING LIMITED
DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL
FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT
RECORDS

19
20

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, through their respective counsel, and

21

ordered by this Court, that the following documents will be disclosed pursuant to this stipulation

22

and protective order:

23

1.

All documents Bates Number DX00009 - DX00251 attached within Exhibit “A”

24

to Defendant City of Fresno’s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Chris

25

Willis’ Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. These documents

26

include Confidential Personnel Records (Shift hours, Training Records,

27

Performance Reviews); Internal Affairs Records; AFS search results; DMV

28

records; RMS search results; Fresno Police Department Classification Codes;
Stipulated Protective Order Defendant City of Fresno’s
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Chris Willis’ RFP set two

1

Finger Print Records of the Decedent; Handwritten Notes of Fresno Police

2

Department Employees; Internal Department Emails; and MDS records.

3

The above-named documents which are maintained by the Fresno City Police Department

4

and requested by plaintiff through discovery, may be disclosed to counsel for the parties pursuant

5

to the protective order detailed below. The documents requested by plaintiff contain information

6

which is deemed confidential. The release of these documents pursuant to this Stipulation and

7

Protective Order does not waive the confidentiality privilege protecting the above-named document

8

from general disclosure.

9
10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:
1.

The “Confidential” documents shall be used solely in connection with this litigation

11

in the preparation and trial of this case, or any related proceeding, and not for any other purpose or

12

in any other litigation. The party producing the documents described above may designate them

13

by affixing a mark labeling the documents as “Confidential Material - Subject to Stipulated

14

Protective Order” provided that such marking does not obscure or obliterate the content of any

15

document. In the event an issue arises regarding a document’s designation, the parties will attempt

16

to resolve it informally before seeking the Court’s intervention.

17
18

2.

The documents identified in this protective order may be disclosed only to the

following persons:

19

a) the counsel for any party to this action;

20

b) paralegal, stenographic, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed

21
22
23
24
25

by counsel referred to in (a);
c) court personnel including stenographic reporters engaged in proceedings as are
necessarily incidental to preparation for the trial of this action;
d) any outside expert or consultant retained in connection with this action and not
otherwise employed by either party;

26

e) any in-house expert designated by defendants to testify at trial in this matter;

27

f) witnesses may have the information disclosed to them during deposition

28

proceedings; the witnesses shall be bound by the provisions of paragraph 3;

Stipulated Protective Order Defendant City of Fresno’s
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Chris Willis’ RFP set two

2

1
2
3

g) the finder of fact at the time of trial subject to the court’s rulings on in limine
motions and objections of counsel;
3.

Each person to whom the confidential documents or any portion thereof is provided,

4

with the exception of counsel who are presumed to know of the contents of this protective order

5

shall, prior to the time of disclosure, be provided by the person furnishing him/her such information,

6

a copy of this order, and shall agree on the record or in writing that he/she has read the protective

7

order and that he/she understands the provisions of the protective order. Such person must also

8

consent to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District

9

of California with respect to any proceeding related to enforcement of this order, including without

10

limitation, any proceeding for contempt. Plaintiff’s counsel shall be responsible for internally

11

tracking the identities of those individuals to whom copies of documents marked as Confidential

12

are given. The defendants may not request the identities of said individuals, however, until the final

13

termination of the litigation or if defendants, in good faith, are able to demonstrate that Plaintiff,

14

or an agent thereof, has breached the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order. Provisions of this

15

order insofar as they restrict disclosure and use of the material shall be in effect until further order

16

of this Court. Should the case proceed to trial, the designation and treatment of the confidential

17

information will be revisited.

18

4.

For testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, the party

19

or counsel for the party providing the testimony may identify on the record, all protected testimony,

20

and further specify any portions of the testimony that qualify as “Confidential.” When it is

21

impractical to identify separately each portion of testimony that is entitled to protection, and when

22

it appears that substantial portions of the testimony may qualify for protection, the party or counsel

23

for the party who gives the testimony may invoke a right to have up to 20 days to identify the

24

specific portions of the testimony as to which protection is sought. Only those portions of the

25

testimony that are appropriately designated for protection within the 20 days shall be covered by

26

the provisions of this Stipulated Protective Order. Transcript pages containing Protected Material

27

must be separately bound by the court reporter, who must affix to the top of each such page the

28

legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or as instructed by the Party or nonparty offering or sponsoring the

Stipulated Protective Order Defendant City of Fresno’s
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Chris Willis’ RFP set two

3

1

witness or presenting the testimony.

2

5.

Confidential information and/or documents that a party intends to use in support of

3

or in opposition to a pre-trial filing with the Court must be filed in accordance with the Eastern

4

District of California Local Rule 141 relating to under seal filings. Any document filed with the

5

Court that includes confidential information shall be submitted under sealed label with a cover sheet

6

as follows: "This document is subject to a protective order issued by the Court and may not be

7

copied or examined except in compliance with that order." Such document shall be kept by the

8

Court under seal and made available only to the Court or counsel.

9

6.

Should any document designated confidential be disclosed, through inadvertence or

10

otherwise, to any person not authorized to receive it under this Protective Order, the disclosing

11

person(s) shall promptly (a) inform the City of Fresno of the recipient(s) and the circumstances of

12

the unauthorized disclosure to the relevant producing person(s) and (b) use best efforts to bind the

13

recipient(s) to the terms of this Protective Order. No information shall lose its confidential status

14

because it was disclosed to a person not authorized to receive it under this Protective Order.

15

7.

After the conclusion of this litigation, the documents, in whatever form stored or

16

reproduced, containing “confidential” information will remain confidential, and if filed with the

17

Court, shall remain under seal. All parties also ensure that all persons to whom “confidential”

18

documents were disclosed shall return the documents to counsel for the producing party. The

19

conclusion of this litigation means termination of the case following applicable post-trial motions,

20

appeal and/or retrial. After the conclusion of this litigation, all confidential documents received

21

under the provisions of this Protective Order, including all copies made, shall be tendered back to

22

the attorneys for the defendants in a manner in which the City of Fresno will be able to reasonably

23

identify that all documents were returned.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Stipulated Protective Order Defendant City of Fresno’s
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Chris Willis’ RFP set two

4

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

2

DATED: May 23, 2011

3

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP

4
By:
5
6

/s/ Roy C. Santos
James D. Weakley
Roy C. Santos
Attorneys for Defendants

7
DATED: May 23, 2011
8

WALTER, HAMILTON & KOENIG, LLP

9
By:
10
11

/s/ Rana Ansari
Peter J. Koenig
Walter Walker
Rana Ansari
Attorneys for Plaintiff

12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated:

May 24, 2011

15

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Stipulated Protective Order Defendant City of Fresno’s
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Chris Willis’ RFP set two

5