Doe v. County of Kern et al

Filing 65

STIPULATION and ORDER 63 Regarding Submissions Containing Allegedly Confidential Information, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/20/2017. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JANE DOE, an individual, 11 12 Case No. 1:16-cv-01469-JLT Plaintiff, vs. 13 COUNTY OF KERN, GEORGE ANDERSON, and DOES 1-10, 14 Defendants. 15 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SUBMISSIONS CONTAINING ALLEGEDLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 16 STIPULATION 17 18 The parties to this action jointly, through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as 19 follows: 20 1. Two motions for summary judgment are currently scheduled for hearing on 21 December 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 60). The deadline for Plaintiff to file her opposition memoranda and 22 supporting materials is approaching. 23 2. In the course of preparing her oppositions, Plaintiff’s attorneys have conferred with 24 counsel for the other parties. The issue is the contemplated citation in Plaintiff’s submissions of 25 materials that Defendants have designated as confidential in the course of discovery. 26 3. Defendants contend that certain categories of information discovered in this matter 27 should remain confidential, including, without limitation, anything related to Defendant 28 -1- 1 Anderson’s personnel file, the documents and information from the Internal Affairs investigation 2 of this incident, and Defendant Anderson’s current employment status. Plaintiff believes that these 3 categories are broad enough to capture information that she intends to use in opposing these 4 motions. 5 4. Plaintiff’s concern is that she be able to timely submit all of the materials she 6 wishes to submit for the Court’s consideration. Since she is responding to two motions 7 simultaneously; since her oppositions are coming due over the Thanksgiving holiday; and since 8 this is a case of significant complexity and detail involving at least 19 depositions and two 9 overlapping prior investigations, she believes she should be able to make full use of the time 10 period for preparing her oppositions. 11 5. After conferring by email, the parties have agreed to the following proposal, which 12 mirrors the solution adopted by the Court in a parallel case involving Defendant Anderson. 13 5. The parties propose that Plaintiff have leave to file her entire oppositions, including 14 all supporting documents, under seal. From the date of that submission, the parties will have 14 15 days to meet and confer on a redacted version to be entered in the public record. If the parties fail 16 to agree on a redacted version, they will each submit their separate proposals for redactions along 17 with a brief statement outlining their differences to chambers for review. 18 6. The parties submit that there is good cause for approving this proposal because it 19 provides all parties with adequate protection and avoids prejudice to either side. This proposal 20 gives Plaintiff the full use of the time period for opposing the motions, and protects her right to 21 submit all of the materials she wishes in opposition to these important motions. Meanwhile, it also 22 gives Defendants the security of knowing that nothing that they allege is confidential will be 23 entered into the public docket without them first having an opportunity to propose redactions. 24 7. The parties request that the Court issue an order implementing this proposal. The 25 parties are also available for an informal conference if any additional information, argument, or 26 clarification is required. 27 28 -2- SO STIPULATED. 1 2 Respectfully Submitted, 3 4 5 DATED: November 16, 2017 LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS C. SEABAUGH 6 By /s/ Thomas C. Seabaugh Thomas C. Seabaugh Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 DATED: November 16, 2017 WEAKLEY & ARENDT 10 11 By /s/ Ashley Torres1 Ashley Torres Attorneys for Defendant Anderson 12 13 14 DATED: November 16, 2017 OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL 15 16 17 By 18 /s/ Kathleen Rivera2 Kathleen Rivera Attorneys for Defendant County of Kern 19 20 21 22 23 24 /// /// /// /// /// 25 26 1 27 2 Signature authorized via email on November 16, 2017. Signature authorized via email on November 16, 2017. 28 -3- 1 ORDER 2 Based upon the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS: 3 Plaintiff is granted leave to submit her entire oppositions to the above motions, including all 4 supporting documents, under seal. From the date of that submission, the parties will have 14 days 5 to meet and confer on and submit to chambers a jointly agreed upon redacted version to be entered 6 in the public record. If the parties fail to agree on a redacted version, they will each submit their 7 separate proposals for redactions along with a brief statement outlining their differences to 8 chambers for review. 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 20, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 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?