Tandel v. County of Sacramento, et al

Filing 121

STIPULATION AND AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/7/14. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

LONGYEAR, O’DEA & LAVRA, LLP
Van Longyear, CSB No. 84189
Jennifer Marquez, CSB No. 232194
3620 American River Drive, Suite 230
Sacramento, California 95864-5923
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants County of
Sacramento, John McGinness, Ann Marie
Boylan, Michael Sotak, M.D., Susan
Kroner RN, Agnes R. Felicano NP,
James Austin NP, John Ko, M.D., Goli
Sahba, M.D., John Wilson, Robert Bauer,
M.D., Asa Hambly, M.D., Hank Carl,
RN. Tracie Keillor and Pablito Gaddis

THE LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN
Geri Lynn Green, CSB No. 127709
Julien Swanson, CSB No. 193957
155 Montgomery Street, Ste. 901
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
THE LAW OFFICES OF DENNISE S. HENDERSON
Dennise Henderson, CSB No. 208640
1903 Twenty-First Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

PORTER SCOTT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Norman V. Prior, CSB No. 125457
Kimberly Kakavas Garner,
CSB No. 264642
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants, Chris Smith,
M.D.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SANDIPKUMAR TANDEL,

16

Plaintiff,

17

vs.

18

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

19

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-00353 MCE AC
[Consolidated with Case No. 2:09-cv-00842 MCE GGH]

STIPULATION FOR AMENDED
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendants.

20
21
Prior to the consolidation of Case Nos. 2:09-CV-00842 and 2:11-CV-00353, the parties
22
in Case No. 2:09-CV-00842 stipulated and this Court, with modifications, approved the
23
protective order. See Case No. 2:09-CV-00842, Doc. 48. The protective order only pertained to
24
Plaintiff’s first lawsuit in 2007. Since then, Plaintiff filed a subsequent lawsuit for incidents that
25
26

1

occurred in 2010. Both cases were consolidated and the consolidated lawsuit now covers

2

Plaintiff’s incarcerations at the Sacramento County Main Jail in 2007 and 2010.

3

The parties hereby stipulate that the Court’s previous order apply for the consolidated

4
case, which covers all of Plaintiff’s incarcerations at the Sacramento County Main Jail.
5
6

Otherwise, the protective order has not substantively been amended. The parties did modify the

7

protective order to include paragraph 8, as the Court previously ordered. See Case No. 2:09-CV-

8

00842, Doc. 48.

9
10

The parties hereby stipulate to the following protective order:
1.

11

In connection with discovery proceedings in this action, the parties hereby designate
documents as “confidential” under the terms of this Stipulation for Protective Order

12
(hereinafter “Order”). The documents protected pursuant to this Order have not been

13

made public and the disclosure of said documents would have the effect of causing harm.

14
15
16
17
18

2.

The documents eligible for protection under this order include:
A. Medical information regarding a third party, including but not limited to inmate
grievances/complaints and medical records. Production of such documents would
violate a third party’s right to privacy.

19
B. Confidential minutes from various Sacramento County Main Jail meetings which
20
21

would reveal the deliberations, communications and pre-decisional mental

22

process made in regard to the quality assurance for medical and mental health

23

care provided to the inmates. The meetings are private and not open to the public.

24

The minutes from the meetings remain confidential and are not disseminated to

25

the public. The minutes contain confidential opinions, suggestions or

26

recommendations regarding quality of medical and mental health care to inmates

27
that should be protected.
28

Stipulation for Amended Protective Order and Proposed Amended Protective Order
Page 2

1

C. A third party’s personnel file. Production of such documents would violate a third

2

party’s right to privacy.

3

D. Sacramento County Main Jail entries/logs regarding the main jail operations.

4
Production of such documents would compromise the safety and security of the
5
main jail, employees and inmates.

6
7

3.

By designating documents as “confidential” under the terms of this Order, the party

8

making the designation is certifying to the Court that there is a good faith basis both in

9

law and in fact for the designation within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10
11

26(g).
4.

Documents produced by a party shall be designated by the party as “confidential” by

12
bates stamping copies of the document with the word “CONFIDENTIAL”. The

13

producing party shall also watermark and/or affix legends to such documents using the

14

words “CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO COURT ORDER.”

15
16

5.

17

Documents designated as “confidential” under this Order (hereinafter, “Confidential
Material”), the information contained therein, and any summaries, copies, abstracts, or

18

other documents derived in whole or in part from material designated as confidential

19
shall be used only for the purpose of this action, and for no other purpose.
20
21

6.

Confidential Material produced pursuant to this Order may be disclosed or made

22

available only to counsel for a party (including the paralegal, clerical, and secretarial staff

23

employed by such counsel and independent office services vendors hired by such

24

counsel). Confidential Material may be provided to any expert retained for consultation

25

and/or trial. In the event that Confidential Material is given to an expert, counsel that

26

retained the expert shall provide a copy of this Order with the Confidential Material.

27
28

Stipulation for Amended Protective Order and Proposed Amended Protective Order
Page 3

1

7.

2

The Confidential Material produced pursuant to this Order will be redacted with respect
to (i) social security numbers; (ii) dates of birth; (iii) financial information (including

3

financial account numbers); and (iv) in all circumstances redact when federal law

4
requires redaction. Each redaction must be identified by showing what information has
5
been redacted (e.g., “social security number,” etc.) This provision complies with Eastern

6

District Local Rule 140.

7
8

8.

9

All parties shall comply with the procedural requirements of Eastern District Local Rules
141 and 141.1 regarding the sealing of documents. The substantive standards set forth in

10

the Ninth Circuit for filing documents under seal are found in Pintos v. Pacific Creditors

11

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) and Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d

12
1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002).

13
14

9.

Nothing in this Order shall in any way limit or prevent Confidential Material from being

15

used in any deposition or other proceeding in this action. In the event that any

16

Confidential Material is used in any deposition or other proceeding in this action, it shall

17

not lose its confidential status through such use.

18

10. This Order is entered for the purpose of facilitating the exchange of documents between

19
the parties to this action without involving the Court unnecessarily in the process.
20
21

Nothing in this Order, or the production of any document under the terms of this Order,

22

shall be deemed to have the effect of an admission or waiver by either party or of altering

23

the confidentiality or non-confidentiality of any such document.

24
25
26

11. Nothing in this Order shall in and of itself require disclosure of information that is
protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other privilege,
doctrine, or immunity, nor does anything in this Order, result in any party giving up its

27
28

Stipulation for Amended Protective Order and Proposed Amended Protective Order
Page 4

1

right to argue that otherwise privileged documents must be produced due to waiver or for

2

any other reason.

3

12. If Confidential Material produced in accordance with this Order is disclosed to any

4
person other than in the manner authorized by this Order, the party responsible for the
5
6

disclosure shall immediately bring all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure to the

7

attention of all counsel of record and, without prejudice to other rights and remedies

8

available to the producing party, make every effort to obtain the return of the disclosed

9

Confidential Material and prevent further disclosure of it by the person who was the

10
11

recipient of such information.
13. This Order shall survive the final termination of this action, to the extent that the

12
13
14

Confidential Material is not or does not become known to the public, and the Court shall
retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute concerning the use of the information disclosed

15

hereunder. Counsel for the parties shall destroy all Confidential Material in their

16

possession, custody, or control within 180 (one hundred eighty) days of final termination

17

of this action, which shall be deemed to occur only when final judgment has been entered

18

and all appeals have been exhausted. Any confidential material filed with the court,

19
sealed or otherwise, will not be returned at the conclusion of the litigation.
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: December 5, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF GERI LYNN GREEN, LC
By: /s/ Geri Lynn Green
GERI LYNN GREEN
Attorney for Plaintiff

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: December 5, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF DENNISE HENDERSON
By: /s/ Dennise Henderson
Stipulation for Amended Protective Order and Proposed Amended Protective Order
Page 5

1

DENNISE HENDERSON
Attorney for Plaintiff

2
3

Dated: December 5, 2012

4

LONGYEAR, O’DEA AND LAVRA, LLP
By: /s/ Jennifer Marquez
VAN LONGYEAR
JENNIFER MARQUEZ
Attorneys for Defendants County of Sacramento,
John McGinness, Ann Marie Boylan, Michael
Sotak, M.D., Susan Kroner RN, Agnes R. Felicano
NP, James Austin NP, John Ko, M.D., Goli Sahba,
M.D., John Wilson, Robert Bauer, M.D., Asa
Hambly, M.D., Hank Carl, RN. Tracie Keillor and
Pablito Gaddis

5
6
7
8
9
10

Dated: December 5, 2012

PORTER SCOTT

11
By: /s/ Norman V. Prior
NORMAN V. PRIOR
KIMBERLY KAKAVAS GARNER
Attorneys for Defendant Chris Smith, M.D.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2014

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

Stipulation for Amended Protective Order and Proposed Amended Protective Order
Page 6