City of Los Angeles, et al. v. Sprint Solutions, Inc. et al.

Filing 108

SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/30/2020. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Colin H. Murray (State Bar No. 159142)
[e-mail]
Anne M. Kelts (State Bar No. 298710)
[e-mail]
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3802
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
John E. Joiner (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
William P. Ashworth (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC. and
NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
[Additional counsel on signature page]

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

16
17
18

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ex rel. RICHARD
KNUDSEN,

19
20
21
22

Case No. 2:17-cv-00811-TLN-AC
Date Action Was Transferred from
Central District of California:
April 18, 2017

Plaintiffs,
vs.
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.; NEXTEL OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., D/B/A NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONS AND SPRINT
NEXTEL; and DOES 1-10,

[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE
ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION
OF CERTAIN CUSTOMER
INFORMATION

23
24

Defendants.

Judge:
Hon. Troy L. Nunley
Trial Date: None set

25
26
27
28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Two Embarcadero Center,
11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-0811-TLN-AC
[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION & PROTECTIVE ORDER

2

WHEREAS Plaintiff City of Los Angeles has served on Defendants Sprint Solutions, Inc. and

3

Nextel of California, Inc., d/b/a Nextel Communications and Sprint Nextel (“Defendants”) Requests

4

for Production of Documents;

5

WHEREAS Defendants have agreed to produce relevant, responsive, non-privileged

6

documents in accordance with the parties’ ongoing meet and confers, some of which may contain

7

information subject to confidentiality limitations;

8
9
10
11
12

WHEREAS the parties wish to facilitate the exchange of relevant, responsive, non-privileged
information and documents which may be subject to such confidentiality limitations;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the
parties hereto, through their respective counsel, that:
1.

Definitions. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Supplemental Stipulation

13

& Protective Order are defined in the Protective Order, Dkt. 88, entered on August 15, 2017,

14

Dkt. 90.

15

a. Other Customer Documents. Other Customer Documents means documents containing

16

certain information related to customers of Defendants other than Plaintiffs, including,

17

for example, documents containing information related to both Plaintiffs and other

18

customers of Defendants. Other Customer Documents contain information that may be

19

protected from disclosure by (1) the restrictions on the production of Customer

20

Proprietary Network Information (“CPNI”), as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 222(h); (2)

21

section 2891 of the California Public Utility Code; (3) provisions of Defendants’

22

contracts with their Other Customers; and (4) other similar laws or provisions restricting

23

dissemination of personal or confidential information.

24

2.

Production of Other Customer Documents. Subject to and without waiving any

25

objections, Defendants may produce relevant, responsive, non-privileged Other Customer

26

Documents. Subject to and without waiving any objections, including but not limited to relevance,

27

Defendants will label or mark Other Customer Documents as “Highly Confidential” documents

28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Two Embarcadero Center,
11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-0811-TLN-AC
[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

under the Protective Order in this action, subject to all terms of the existing Protective Order,

2

including but not limited to Plaintiffs’ right to challenge the confidentiality designation of any

3

document produced.

4

IT IS SO AGREED UPON AND STIPULATED.

5
6
7

Dated: November 24, 2020

8

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
Colin H. Murray
Anne M. Kelts

9
10
11

By: ../s/ William P. Ashworth
William P. Ashworth
Attorneys for Sprint Defendants
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC. and
NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

12
13
14

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
John E. Joiner
William P. Ashworth

Dated: November 24, 2020

COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP

15
16
17

By: /s/ Eric J. Buescher
Eric J. Buescher
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF LOS ANGELES

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Two Embarcadero Center,
11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-0811-TLN-AC
[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

1
2

ATTESTATION
I, William P. Ashworth, attest that I am one of the attorneys for the Sprint Defendants, and

3

as the ECF user and filer of this document, I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document

4

has been obtained from its signatories.

5
6

Date: November 24, 2020

./s/ William P. Ashworth
William P. Ashworth

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Two Embarcadero Center,
11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-0811-TLN-AC
[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

1
2

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ex rel. RICHARD KNUDSEN v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of California - Case No. 2:17-CV-0811-TLN-AC

3
4

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

DATED: November 30, 2020

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
Two Embarcadero Center,
11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-0811-TLN-AC
[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER