Newman v. County of Fresno, et al.

Filing 18

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZING LIMITED DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/4/2017. (Lafata, M)

1 James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853
Leslie M. Dillahunty, Esq. Bar No. 195262
2
WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP
3
1630 East Shaw Avenue., Suite 176
Fresno, California 93710
4
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
6
Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO, also erroneously separately sued as
7 FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICER HERNANDEZ
8

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 TRICIA NEWMAN,

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01099-DAD-MJS

13

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
AUTHORIZING LIMITED DISCLOSURE
OF CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS

14
15
16
17

18
19
20
21

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTY OF FRESNO, a public entity;
)
FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, a public entity; and FRESNO )
)
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICER
HERNANDEZ, individually and in his official )
)
capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Complaint Filed: July 29, 2016
Trial Date: December 5, 2017
Public Entity Exempt from Filing Fees
Pursuant to Government Code section
6103

IT IS STIPULATED by and between the parties that certain County of Fresno Sheriff’s

22 Department

documentation

and/or training materials pertaining to

encountering animals,

23 including dogs, which is provided to its sheriff’s deputies, may be disclosed to the Ryther Law
24 Group, attorneys for the plaintiff, Trish Newman, and the law firm of Weakley & Arendt, LLP,
25 attorneys for the County of Fresno, erroneously separately sued as the Fresno County Sheriff’s
26 Department, and Fresno County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Hernandez, in the civil case of Trisha
27 Newman v. County of Fresno, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California,

28 Case No. 1:16-cv-01099-DAD-MJS.

Stipulated Protective Order

1

1
2

It is further ordered that disclosure of the documentation, as well as deposition and trial
testimony will be pursuant to the following Protective Order:

3
4
5
6

7
8

PROTECTIVE ORDER
1.

Trisha Newman v. County of Fresno, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of
California, Case No. 1:16-cv-01099-DAD-MJS, in the discovery and trial of this case, or any
related proceeding, and not for any other purpose or in any other litigation.
2.

9

12

b) paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel
referred to in subpart (a) directly above, including stenographic deposition reporters retained in
connection with this action;

13
14

c) court personnel including stenographic reporters engaged in proceedings as
are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial of the civil action;

15
16

d) any expert, consultant or investigator, either non-retained or retained, in
connection with this action;

17

18
19
20
21
22

e) witnesses other than plaintiff may have the documents disclosed to them in
preparation for trial as deemed necessary by counsel, including disclosure in connection with
investigation, discovery proceedings, law and motion matters, arbitration, and/or trial only; the
witnesses may not leave the deposition, arbitration or trial with copies of the documents, and
shall be bound by the provisions of paragraph 3.

25
26
27

28

Any documents attached to a deposition

transcript will be attached under seal.

23
24

The documents may only be disclosed to the following persons:
a) counsel for the parties and all parties to this action;

10
11

The disclosed documents shall be used solely in connection with the civil case of

f) 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 disclosure is made with the exception of counsel, who are

presumed to know the contents of this protective order shall, prior to the time of disclosure, be
provided by the person furnishing him or her such material, a copy of the Protective Order.
Each person to whom disclosure is made shall agree on the record or in writing that he/she has

Stipulated Protective Order

2

1
2
3
4
5

read the Protective Order and he/she understands the provisions of that Order. Such person
must also consent to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, with respect to any proceeding related to enforcement of this Order,
including without limitation, any proceeding for contempt.

they restrict disclosure and use of the material, shall be in effect until further order of this Court.

6

4.

Any documents filed with the court subject to this protective order shall be filed

seal

and

7

under

8

PROTECTIVE ORDER.”

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Provisions of this Order, insofar as

marked

as

follows: “CONFIDENTIAL

RECORDS

SUBJECT

Such documents shall be kept by the Court under seal and made

available only to the Court or counsel.

It is the responsibility of the attorney filing the

documents to ensure compliance with the provisions set forth above.
5.

Any confidential document subject to this Protective Order that is attached as an

exhibit to a deposition shall be done so under seal and identified as confidential.
6.

At the conclusion of this litigation, all confidential documents received under the

provisions of this Order, including copies made, shall be destroyed, or tendered back to the
agency or department from which they were obtained. The conclusion of this litigation means a
termination of the case following applicable post-trial motions, appeal and/or retrial.
DATED: April 3, 2017

RYTHER LAW GROUP, LLP

18
By:

19
20

/s/ Jill Ryther
Jill Ryther, attorneys for
Plaintiff, Trisha Newman

21
22

TO

DATED: April 3, 2017

23

WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP
By:

24
25

/s/ James D. Weakley
Leslie M. Dillahunty attorneys for
County of Fresno, erroneously separately
sued as the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department,
and Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Hernandez

26
27

28

Stipulated Protective Order

3

1
ORDER

2
3
4

Good cause appearing, the above Stipulated Protective Order in Case No. 1:16-

5
cv-01099-DAD-MJS is accepted and its terms adopted as the Order of this Court.
6

7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:

April 4, 2017

/s/

10

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Stipulated Protective Order

4