Doe v. County of Kern et al

Filing 94

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/12/2017. Order includes instructions for filing motions and related documents under seal. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, an individual, Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No. 1:15-cv-01641 -JLT ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE vs. (Doc. 93) 14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al, Defendants. 15 16 17 The Court held an informal telephonic conference at the request of counsel to address 18 various issues that have arising. Based upon this conference, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. When filing any further pretrial motions or other briefs that include information that 20 contain confidential information, the parties SHALL comply with the following procedures: 21 a. As to plaintiff’s brief related to the bifurcation motion, the plaintiff SHALL 22 provide to opposing counsel via email, an unredacted copy of the “confidential appendix” no later 23 than June 13, 2016. The parties SHALL meet and confer SHALL agree upon the material that 24 should be redacted no later than June 21, 2016. Defendants SHALL follow the procedures set 25 forth above in paragraph 1(c) related to their brief regarding birfurcation; 26 b. Counsel SHALL file their motions in limine no later than June 16, 2017, 27 with confidential information redacted. Concurrently with the filing, counsel SHALL provide 28 1 1 unredacted copies of the motion to opposing counsel via email; 2 c. No later than June 22, 2017, counsel opposing the motion in limine 3 SHALL review the redacted and the unredacted version of the motion to ensure they agree with the 4 redactions that have been made. No later than June 23, 2016, the moving party SHALL lodge 5 with the Court via email to an unredacted copy of each motion. If 6 there is any disagreement with the redactions already made in the filed copy of any motion, the 7 moving party SHALL also lodge a finalized copy of the redacted motion. If there are no changes 8 sought related to the redactions made in the filed copy, no further redacted copy should be lodged; 9 d. Assuming any party seeks to file opposition to a motion in limine which 10 includes material that should be filed under seal, the parties SHALL meet and confer and SHALL 11 agree upon the material that should be redacted. The parties are authorized to file the motion with 12 this material redacted. At the same the party files the redacted opposition, the party SHALL also 13 lodge with the Court via email to, an unredacted copy of each 14 motion; 15 e. Any other filings before trial SHALL comply with the procedures set forth in 16 paragraph (c) above; 17 e. Any motion filed according to Federal Rules of Evidence 412, any opposition 18 and any reply thereto, SHALL be filed under seal. In this event, the moving party SHALL file a 19 notice of the motion and lodge a copy of the motion with the Court via email to 20 For the opposition and reply briefs, the party SHALL file a notice 21 of filing the document and, at the same time, lodge a copy of the motion with the Court via email to 22; 23 2. In addition to the exhibit binders described in the pretrial order (Doc.83 at 40-41), 24 counsel may provide a fourth type of exhibit binder. This category of documents includes those 25 upon which both sides may wish to rely but which will not be admitted except after the proponent 26 properly moving the exhibit into evidence at trial. This exhibit binder SHALL be titled, “Shared 27 Exhibits” and SHALL be numbered beginning with “SE 1.” All other requirements for treatment 28 2 1 of the exhibits, set forth in the pretrial order (Doc. 83 at 40-41), SHALL apply to the Shared 2 Exhibits. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?