A. v. Modesto City School District et al

Filing 59

PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/28/24.(Kastilahn, A)

1 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,
Wayte & Carruth LLP
2 Matthew K. Hawkins, #131117
[e-mail]
3 Laura A. Wolfe, #266751
[e-mail]
4 1125 I Street, Suite 1
Modesto, California 95354
5 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
6
Attorneys for Defendants MODESTO CITY
7 SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEAN DAVIS,
MICHAEL COATS, BRIAN BERGERSON,
8 and MARLA MACK
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12 SAMUEL MICHAEL ALFORD,

Case No. 1:20-cv-01767-KJM-KJN

13

ORDER GRANTING JOINT
STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION

14

Plaintiff,
v.

15 MODESTO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
SEAN DAVIS, MICHAEL COATS, BRIAN
16 BERGERSON, MARLA MACK and DOES 1
to 50, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18

PROTECTIVE ORDER

19
20

The parties to this case agree that during the course of discovery, certain information

21 requested by the parties in the above-entitled action may contain information that may be
22 considered: (a) confidential, sensitive, or potentially invasive of an individuals’ privacy interests;
23 (b) not generally known; or (c) in violation of HIPAA, and if disclosed to third parties, could require
24 such third parties to maintain the information in confidence, including documents that may consist
25 of or contain medical records, personnel information, identities of other care facility residents, or
26 other confidential.
27 / / /
28 / / /
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
FRESNO, CA 93720

JOINT STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

1

In order to protect confidential information obtained by the parties in connection with this

2 case, the parties, by and through their respective counsel and subject to approval of the court agree
3 as follows:
4

Documents produced by parties to this action, are subject to this Protective Order.

5

Protected Information under this Protective Order may only be Disclosed to the following

6 persons:
7

a)

Counsel for the parties;

8

b)

Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel

9 referred to in subpart (a) directly above, including stenographic deposition reporters or
10 videographers retained in connection with this action;
11

c)

The Court, Court personnel and the finder of fact engaged in proceedings as

12 are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial, any motions thereto and the trial of the
13 Action, subject to the Court’s rulings on motions and objections of counsel;
14

d)

Any expert or consultant retained in connection with this action but only to

15 the extent reasonably necessary to assist or advise counsel for that party, or as necessary while
16 testifying under oath in the Action;
17

e)

Any third party administrator or insurance carrier for the defendants; and

18

f)

The parties, to the extent reasonably necessary to assist their counsel in this

19 litigation or for their counsel to advise them with respect to the litigation.
20

This Stipulation is not applicable to information that is received through other sources at any

21 time.
22

After the conclusion of the Action, all disclosed information, in whatever form stored or

23 reproduced, shall be destroyed to the extent allowed by law. However, counsel may retain the
24 documents for archival purposes. The conclusion of the Action means the entry of a dismissal of the
25 Action or a termination of the Action following applicable post-trial motions, appeal, and/or retrial.
26 The parties will also take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that persons to whom they
27 disclose another party’s Protected Information destroy or return the Protected Information to the
28 producing party.
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
FRESNO, CA 93720

2

JOINT STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

1

This Protective Order shall be in effect until further order of this Court.

2
3 Dated: March 21, 2024
4

LAW OFFICES OF FRANK PACHECO
By:

5

/s/ Frank M. Pacheco
Frank M. Pacheco
Attorney for Plaintiff

6
7
8
9

Dated: March 21, 2024

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

10
11

By:

/s/ Matthew K. Hawkins
Matthew K. Hawkins
Attorneys for Defendants

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER
The court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order. (See ECF No. 58.) The
stipulation comports with the relevant authorities and the court’s applicable local rule. See L.R.
141.1. The court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. The Local
Rules state that once an action is closed, “unless otherwise ordered, the court will not retain
jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f);
see also, e.g., MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 WL 495778 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 03, 2017)
(noting that courts in the district generally do not agree to retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning
protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the court will not retain jurisdiction over this
protective order once the case is closed. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 28, 2024

25

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
FRESNO, CA 93720

21,mode.1767

3

JOINT STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION