Ruiz et al v. City of Stockton et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION and ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF "PERSONNEL RECORDS", signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/9/14. Additionally, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith (either in person, or at a minimum, by telephone) prior to the filing of a motion for a protective order. The court expects the parties to stipulate to a reasonable extension(s) of the five-day period to file a motion for a protective order, contemplated above, should it prove necessary to exhaust good faith informal meet-and-confer efforts. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)
Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12

JOHN M. LUEBBERKE, City Attorney
State Bar No. 164893
NEAL C. LUTTERMAN, Deputy City Attorney
State Bar No. 174681
425 N. El Dorado Street, Second Floor
Stockton, California 95202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

13

Attorneys for Defendants

8
9
10
11

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
17
18

Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

JUAN ANTONIO RUIZ, JR., et al.,

19

Plaintiffs,

20

vs.

21

STIPULATED AGREEMENT
RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL
RECORDS”; ORDER

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

22
23
24

Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff Juan Antonio Ruiz, Jr. served Defendants City of Stockton, City of

25

Stockton Police Department, Eric Jones, Alejandro Guerrero, and Thomas Quinones (collectively,

26

“Defendants”) with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On November 24, 2014, Defendants

27

responded to the discovery requests but withheld production of all “personnel records” implicated by

28

Plaintiff Juan Antonio Ruiz, Jr.’s discovery requested.
1

30
31

STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER
Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

1
2

Following meet and confer efforts between the parties’ counsel, the following stipulated
agreement has been reached.

3
4

STIPULATION
1.

Defendants agree to provide Plaintiffs with all documents responsive to Plaintiff Juan

5

Antonio Ruiz, Jr.’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, subject to any attorney-client

6

privileged information and/or information protected under the work-product doctrine.

7
8
9

2.

These documents will be specially-designated, and may only be disclosed to counsel,

parties, and experts within this litigation.
3.

If Plaintiffs intend to disclose these specially-designated documents to anyone outside of

10

the litigation, Plaintiffs’ counsel will notify Defendants’ counsel as to the particular document(s) they

11

intend to disclose.

12

4.

In response, Defendants’ counsel will determine whether or not to seek a protective order,

13

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), regarding the particular document(s). Defendants’

14

counsel will advise Plaintiffs’ counsel and file a motion for protective order within five (5) calendar days

15

after Plaintiffs’ counsel provides notification, if Defendants’ counsel intends to subject the document(s)

16

to court-ordered protection.

17

5.

If Plaintiffs’ counsel does not receive notification from Defendants’ counsel regarding

18

intent to seek a protective order within five (5) calendar days, the document(s) is no longer subject to this

19

stipulated agreement and Plaintiffs’ counsel may distribute the document(s) without limitation.

20

6.

After Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided Defendants’ counsel notification of intent to

21

distribute a document(s), Plaintiffs’ counsel agrees that if Defendants’ counsel informs Plaintiffs’ counsel

22

that a protective order will be sought within five (5) calendar days and files a motion for protective order,

23

Plaintiffs’ counsel will not distribute the document(s) at issue until after the Court has issued a ruling

24

regarding whether the document(s) is properly subject to protection under Federal Rule of Civil

25

Procedure 26(c).

26
27
28
30
31

2
STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER
Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

1

Dated: December 8, 2014

2

Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
/s/ Mark E. Merin

3

By: __________________________________
Mark E. Merin

4
5

Attorney for Plaintiffs

6
7

Dated: December 8, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,
CITY OF STOCKTON

8
9
10

/s/ Neal C. Lutterman
(as authorized on December 8, 2014)
By: __________________________________
Neal C. Lutterman

11

Attorney for Defendants

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

3
STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER
Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

1

ORDER

2

IT IS SO ORDERED. Additionally, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith

3

(either in person, or at a minimum, by telephone) prior to the filing of a motion for a protective order.

4

The court expects the parties to stipulate to a reasonable extension(s) of the five-day period to file a

5

motion for a protective order, contemplated above, should it prove necessary to exhaust good faith

6

informal meet-and-confer efforts.

7

Dated: December 9, 2014

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

4
STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER
Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN