Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County

Filing 96

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 95 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF CLOSED SESSION RECORDS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE filed by Contra Costa County. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 16, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2014)

1 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
JEFFREY LEWIS, SBN 066587
2 [e-mail]
ANDREW LAH, SBN 234580
3 [e-mail]
NINA WASOW, SBN 242047
4 [e-mail]
DARIN RANAHAN, SBN 273532
5 [e-mail]
476 9th Street
6 Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone:
[phone]
7 Facsimile:
[phone]

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
9
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
10 RAYMOND F. LYNCH, SBN 119065
[e-mail]
11 STEPHEN B. PECK, SBN 72214
[e-mail]
12 JANE M. FEDDES, SBN 282117
[e-mail]
13 425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
14 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
15
Attorneys for Defendant
16 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20 RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY,
21
Plaintiff,
22
v.
23
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
24
Defendant.
25

CASE NO. C 12-00944 JST
STIPULATION RE PRODUCTION OF
CLOSED SESSION RECORDS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO CLAIMS OF
PRIVILEGE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar

26
27

WHEREAS, Defendant has withheld from production documents on grounds including

28 that the records from closed sessions of the Defendant’s Board of Supervisors are exempt from
6370194.1

C 12-00944 JST
STIPULATION RE PRODUCTION OF CLOSED SESSION RECORDS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND TO
CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1 disclosure under Federal and State law under the deliberative process privilege and State law
2 pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et. seq, including section
3 54957.6. (“Privilege Claims”);
4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant dispute the applicability and extent of these privileges

5 in this case, including the Brown Act, but wish to narrow the parties' disputes to the extent
6 possible;
7

WHEREAS, Defendant is willing to produce some closed session and other materials

8 under the parties’ Protective Order upon the conditions that Defendant's productions do not
9 constitute a waiver of any kind and are without prejudice to its Privilege Claims and applicability
10 of the Brown Act and that County retains the right to object to any use of the records in and during
11 a deposition, motion or at trial on the grounds of its Privilege Claims;
12

WHEREAS, so long as Plaintiff retains the claims and arguments it has before production,

13 Plaintiff is willing to agree that County's production of closed session and other records is made
14 without prejudice to the County’s Privilege Claims concerning the disclosed record and that

15 County retains the right to object to any use of the record in and during a deposition, motion or at
16 trial on the grounds of privilege, and that Plaintiff may not use the disclosed record or its content
17 to argue that additional undisclosed closed session records or testimony about deliberations in
18 closed session are discoverable or not privileged.
19

NOW, THEREFORE, in order to narrow the scope of the parties’ discovery disputes,

20 expedite discovery, and prepare for trial, the parties, through their respective attorneys, agree as
21 follows:
22

1.

The documents produced pursuant to this Stipulation will be governed by the terms

23 of this Stipulation and Order and the Protective Order entered in this case on August 22, 2014
24 (Docket Number 80);
25

2.

To the extent Defendant produces closed session or other records under the

26 Protective Order, Defendant’s production of such records does not waive its Privilege Claims or
27 confidentiality as to the document or the confidentiality of any such proceeding and its disclosures
6370194.1

28 are without prejudice to Defendant's Privilege Claims which it may assert later in or during
C 12-00944 JST
-2STIPULATION RE PRODUCTION OF CLOSED SESSION RECORDS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND TO
CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1 depositions, motions, and at trial;
2

3.

Plaintiff does not waive and preserves any claim it has that closed session records

3 are discoverable. However, Plaintiff may not use the disclosed closed session records or their
4 content to argue that additional undisclosed closed session records or testimony about
5 deliberations in closed session are discoverable.
6

SO STIPULATED:

7

8 DATED: July 14, 2014

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER &
JACKSON, P.C.

9
10
By:
11

/s/
NINA WASOW

12
13 DATED: July 14, 2014

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

14

15

By:

/s/
RAYMOND F. LYNCH

16
17

25

ER

R NIA

Ti ga r

FO

n S.
J u d ge J o

H

24

RT

23

NO

22

I
HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR
United States District Court Judge

A

21

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

LI

20 Dated: _July 16, 2014

UNIT
ED

19

RT
U
O

S

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

26
27
28
6370194.1

C 12-00944 JST
-3STIPULATION RE PRODUCTION OF CLOSED SESSION RECORDS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND TO
CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

SIGNATURES UNDER GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

2 Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the United States District Court, Northern District of
3 California, I, Raymond Lynch—the ECF User whose User ID and Password are used in the filing
4 of this document—hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been
5 obtained from each of the other signatories to this document.
6
7

/s/
Raymond Lynch

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6370194.1

C 12-00944 JST
-4STIPULATION RE PRODUCTION OF CLOSED SESSION RECORDS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND TO
CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER