The Estate of Kenneth Harding Jr. et al v. The City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
35
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 34 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER STIPULATED [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by The City and County of San Francisco, Richard Hastings, Matthew Lopez. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/17/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS, State Bar #164194
Chief Trial Deputy
BLAKE P. LOEBS, State Bar #145790
Chief of Civil Rights Litigation
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone:
(415) 554-3868
Facsimile:
(415) 554-3837
E-Mail:
blake.loebs@sfgov.org
7
8
9
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
MATTHEW LOPEZ, and RICHARD HASTINGS
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE ESTATE OF KENNETH HARDING Jr.;
DENIKA CHATMAN, individually and as
personal representative of the ESTATE OF
KENNETH HARDING, Jr.
Case No. C12-3978 EMC
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Trial Date:
Not Set
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation;
OFFICER MATTHEW LOPEZ individually
and in his official capacity as a Police Officer
for CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; OFFICER RICHARD
HASTINGS individually and in his official
capacity as a Police Officer for CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; DOES 1-50,
inclusive; individually and in their official
capacities as POLICE OFFICERS for CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER,
CASE NO. C12-3978 EMC
1
n:\lit\li2013\120088\00854181.doc
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) the parties have met and conferred and agree
2
that the discovery of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION in this matter be made pursuant to the terms
3
of this PROTECTIVE ORDER.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the parties stipulate, though their attorneys of record, to the
4
5
entry of an order as follows:
1.
6
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, within the meaning of this PROTECTIVE
7
ORDER, shall include all documents containing peace officer personnel records, official information
8
and any other such documents that defendants in good faith have determined to be confidential.
9
Defendants shall attempt to stamp "Confidential" on all such documents prior to production. In the
10
event that any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION is inadvertently not stamped as "Confidential" by
11
defendants, the party who notices this oversight shall immediately make it known to the other parties
12
and the documents shall immediately be stamped as "Confidential" and treated as such, as per this
13
order.
14
2.
Intentionally Blank
15
3.
Plaintiff may challenge defendants’ designation of a particular document as
16
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by filing an appropriate motion, under seal, with the Court. The
17
parties agree that the prevailing party in a motion to remove the confidential designation shall waive
18
any entitlement to monetary sanctions, including attorney’s fees.
19
4.
Unless disclosure is ordered by the Court, attorneys for defendants shall have the sole
20
authority to determine that documents subject to the PROTECTIVE ORDER are no longer considered
21
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and will advise counsel for plaintiff in writing if this
22
determination is made.
23
5.
Plaintiff’s Counsel may exhibit, discuss, and/or disclose CONFIDENTIAL
24
INFORMATION only to the following categories of person and no other unless authorized by order of
25
the Court:
26
a.
Plaintiff’s Counsel;
27
b.
Experts, investigators or consultants retained by Plaintiff’s Counsel to assist in
28
the evaluation, preparation, or trial of this case; however, before any expert, investigator, or consultant
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER,
CASE NO. C12-3978 EMC
2
n:\lit\li2013\120088\00854181.doc
1
is permitted to review the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, such individual must agree to comply
2
with the terms of this PROTECTIVE ORDER by executing the document attached as Exhibit A.
3
Plaintiff’s counsel shall file and serve that document upon its execution; however, Plaintiff’s counsel
4
shall not be required to serve Agreement to Comply any earlier than the date that Expert Disclosures
5
are required to be made and shall only have to serve the Agreements to Comply for designated experts.
6
Experts, investigators, and consultants shall not have any power to authorize further disclosure of
7
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any other person.
8
9
6.
Counsel for Plaintiff may not provide originals or copies of the CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION to any plaintiff absent the written agreement of counsel for the City or a court order.
10
Counsel for Plaintiff, however, may show Plaintiff CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION and may
11
discuss CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with Plaintiff.
12
7.
Unless otherwise stipulated to by defendants, any use of CONFIDENTIAL
13
INFORMATION or comment on the substance of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION in any
14
papers or pleadings filed with the Court, shall be filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s rules and
15
procedures (see Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5). The sealed envelopes shall be
16
endorsed with the caption of this litigation, and an indication of the nature of the contents of the
17
envelopes and a statement substantially in the following form:
"This envelope contains documents that are filed in this case pursuant to a
Protective Order and are not to be opened nor the contents thereof to be
displayed or revealed except by further order of the Court or written consent of
the City and County of San Francisco."
18
19
20
21
8.
In the event any person desires to exhibit documents or disclose CONFIDENTIAL
22
INFORMATION covered under this stipulation during trial or pretrial proceedings, such person shall
23
meet and confer with counsel for defendants to reach an agreement, in accordance with the Court’s
24
rules and procedures, on an appropriate method for disclosure. For depositions, CONFIDENTIAL
25
INFORMATION shall be shown to opposing counsel immediately before any CONFIDENTIAL
26
INFORMATION is shown to a witness. If the parties are unable to agree on the manner in which the
27
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION can be used in the deposition it will be Defendant’s burden to
28
immediately seek a further order from the court within 7 days. Unless otherwise agreed, transcripts
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER,
CASE NO. C12-3978 EMC
3
n:\lit\li2013\120088\00854181.doc
1
and exhibits that incorporate or reference CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION covered under this
2
stipulation shall be treated as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION that is subject to the provisions of
3
this PROTECTIVE ORDER. The Court Reporter shall mark as “Confidential” any portion of a
4
deposition or hearing transcript that contains any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION or any reference
5
to CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
6
9.
Any inadvertent disclosure made in violation of this PROTECTIVE ORDER shall be
7
immediately corrected by the offending party and does not constitute a waiver of the terms of this
8
PROTECTIVE ORDER, except by written agreement of the parties, or further order of this Court.
9
10.
All documents covered by this PROTECTIVE ORDER and copies thereof (including
10
those in the possession of experts, consultants, etc.) will be returned to the San Francisco City
11
Attorney's Office at the termination of this litigation. On final disposition of this case, plaintiff’s
12
counsel shall within 30 days after the final disposition of this case, without request or further order of
13
this Court, return all CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to the Deputy City Attorney of record in this
14
matter. The provisions of this PROTECTIVE ORDER shall, without further order of the Court,
15
continue to be binding after the conclusion of the action, and this Court will have jurisdiction to
16
enforce the terms of this PROTECTIVE ORDER.
17
11.
Should any party or their counsel fail to comply with this PROTECTIVE ORDER, the
18
person violating the order shall be liable for all costs associated with enforcing this agreement,
19
including but not limited to all attorney fees in amounts to be determined by the Court. Any party and
20
their counsel may also be subject to additional sanctions or remedial measures, such as contempt,
21
evidentiary or terminating sanctions for violating this order. Counsel, however, shall not he held
22
responsible for actions that are attributable to a party.
23
12.
Within 30 days after the initial delivery of the documents subject to this order, the
24
parties will meet and confer and regarding which documents should remain protected by this order. If
25
the parties are not able to come to an agreement, Defendants will have the burden to file a motion with
26
the Court seeking to have the disputed matters protected. Until the Court has resolved the Defendants’
27
motion, all documents designated as confidential shall remain protected by this order. Should
28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER,
CASE NO. C12-3978 EMC
4
n:\lit\li2013\120088\00854181.doc
1
Defendants not file a motion to have the disputed documents remain protected within 30 days after the
2
parties first meet and confer, this order shall no longer be in effect for those disputed documents to
3
which the parties have not agreed should be protected by this order. This temporary protective order
4
shall become the permanent order for all documents the parties agree should be protected.
5
6
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
7
8
Dated: June 14, 2013
9
10
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS
Chief Trial Deputy
BLAKE P. LOEBS
Chief of Civil Rights Litigation
11
By: /s/ Blake P. Loebs
BLAKE P. LOEBS
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
MATTHEW LOPEZ, AND RICHARD HASTINGS
12
13
14
15
Dated: June 14, 2013
17
CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP
By: /s/ John C. Carpenter
JOHN C. CARPENTER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
THE ESTATE OF KENNETH HARDING Jr.;
DENIKA CHATMAN
18
19
20
*Pursuant to General Order 45, the electronic signatory of
this documents attests that this individual concurs in his
electronic signature of this document.
21
22
en
d M. Ch
e Edwar
Judg
THE HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ER
H
28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER,
CASE NO. C12-3978 EMC
5
FO
LI
RT
27
OR
NO
6/17
Dated: ________________, 2013
O
IT IS S
R NIA
BASED ON THE ABOVE ENTERED STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED RED
DE
25
26
S
UNIT
ED
24
ORDER
RT
U
O
23
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
A
16
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
n:\lit\li2013\120088\00854181.doc
1
EXHIBIT A
2
AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
3
4
I,
, have read and understand the Court’s Protective Order for
5
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. I agree to abide by all terms of the Order. In addition, I
6
specifically understand and agree to the following:
7
1.
I will not disclose the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any other person.
8
2.
I understand that I have no power to authorize any other person to review the
9
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
10
3.
I agree not to keep or disseminate copies of the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
11
4.
I agree to return the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to the counsel for the party
12
13
14
that produced it, at or before the conclusion of this litigation.
5.
I understand that if I violate any of the terms of the Protective Order, then Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and I may be subject to sanctions or possible contempt.
15
16
AGREED:
17
18
DATE
19
SIGNATURE
20
21
PRINT NAME
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER,
CASE NO. C12-3978 EMC
6
n:\lit\li2013\120088\00854181.doc
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?