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)

Download PDF
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: 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?