Schmidt et al v. Shasta County Marshal's Office et al

Filing 95

STIPULATION and PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/30/2018. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SLOAN SAKAI LLP YEUNG & WONG LLP
Attorneys at Law

13
14

ANTHONY J. POIDMORE (SBN 51346)
[e-mail]
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, California 95825
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff
JAIME SCHMIDT
TIMOTHY G. YEUNG (SBN 186170)
[e-mail]
STEVE CIKES (SBN 235413)
[e-mail]
SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 600
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SHASTA (erroneously sued herein as
SHASTA COUNTY MARSHAL’S OFFICE)

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

JAIME SCHMIDT, DEBRA KNOWLES,
ELIZABETH SAMPSON, AND RYAN
HENRIOULLE,

Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE-CMK
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
REGARDING PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Plaintiffs,
v.

Date: January 10, 2019
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 7
Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

SHASTA COUNTY MARSHAL’S OFFICE
AND JOEL DEAN,
Defendants.

Complaint Filed: October 21, 2014
Trial Date: February 25, 2019

24
25
26
27
28
30
31

-1STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION; Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE-CMK

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 140(b), Defendant Superior Court of California, County of Shasta

2

(“Defendant” or “Superior Court”) and Plaintiff Jaime Schmidt (“Plaintiff” or “Schmidt”) (collectively,

3

the “Parties”) hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

4

1.

A trial on Plaintiff’s ninth and tenth causes of action against Defendant for retaliation

5

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”) and California’s Fair

6

Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) is scheduled to commence on February 25, 2019.

7

2.

Depending on the scope of the allegations presented at trial (as will be determined by the

8

Court’s rulings on the parties’ concurrently-filed motions in limine), the Parties may need to present

9

evidence (including exhibits) containing confidential personnel information with regard to non-party

10

employees subject to state and federal rights to privacy (hereinafter, “Confidential Personnel

11

Information”).

12

3.

Such Confidential Personnel Information may include records taken from the personnel

SLOAN SAKAI LLP YEUNG & WONG LLP
Attorneys at Law

13

files of non-party employees who have not waived or otherwise elected to forego any claimed right of

14

privacy to said information as well as documents reflecting or relating to internal complaints lodged by

15

or against non-party employees as well as Defendant’s investigation into said complaints.

16

4.

Accordingly, the Parties agree and request permission to redact from exhibits offered at

17

trial qualifying as or containing such Confidential Personnel Information any identifying information

18

with regard to non-party employees, including the employee’s name, date of birth, employee number or

19

other similar identifying information. In the event the Court so orders, the Parties will also lodge

20

unredacted copies of said exhibits under seal.

21

5.

There is good cause and particularized need for the protective order proposed herein. The

22

privacy rights of non-party employees would likely be harmed if documents (including documents from

23

their personnel files) were left without any protection and presented to the jury for consideration.

24

Consequently, courts regularly and frequently limit the disclosure of such highly confidential and

25

sensitive personnel information. See, e.g., Knoll v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 365 (6th Cir.

26

1999) (affirming district court’s decision to limit access of defendant’s employees because “personnel

27

files might contain highly personal information such as an individual’s unlisted address and telephone

28

number, marital status, wage information, medical background, credit history (such as requests for

30
31

-2STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION; Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE-CMK

1

garnishment of wages), and other work-related problems unrelated to plaintiff’s claims”); Grinzi v.

2

Barnes, 2004 WL 2370639, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2004) (“The proper mechanism for an employer to

3

use to protect an employee’s privacy interests in his personnel file is to obtain, either by stipulation or

4

motion, a properly crafted protective order”).

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December 13, 2018

CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
CORPORATION

9
By:

10

/s/
Anthony J. Poidmore
Attorney for Plaintiff Jaime Schmidt

11
12
SLOAN SAKAI LLP YEUNG & WONG LLP
Attorneys at Law

13

Dated: December 13, 2018

SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP

14
By:

/s/
Steve Cikes
Attorney for Defendant Superior Court of California,
County of Shasta
PROTECTIVE ORDER

15
16
17
18

Per the Parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ordered that the Parties

19

are permitted to redact from exhibits offered at trial qualifying as or containing Confidential Personnel

20

Information any identifying information with regard to non-party employees, including the employee’s

21

name, date of birth, employee number or other similar identifying information. In the event the Court so

22

orders, the Parties will also lodge unredacted copies of said exhibits under seal.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 30, 2018

25
26
27
28
30
31

-3STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION; Case No. 2:14-CV-02471-MCE-CMK