Marilley v. McCamman et al
Filing
57
PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/01/2011. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
CECILIA L. DENNIS, SBN 201997
M. ELAINE MECKENSTOCK, SBN 268861
Deputy Attorneys General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5395
Fax: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Cecilia.Dennis@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for All Defendants
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
OAKLAND DIVISION
11
12
13
14
KEVIN MARILLEY; SALVATORE
PAPETTI; SAVIOR PAPETTI, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated,
15
11-CV-2418-DMR
Plaintiffs,
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Judge
16
Trial Date July 30, 2012
Action Filed: May 18, 2011
17
18
19
20
21
The Honorable Donna M. Ryu
v.
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, in his official
capacity; JIM KELLOGG, in his official
capacity; MICHAEL SUTTON, in his
official capacity; DANIEL W. RICHARDS,
in his official capacity; and JACK BAYLIS,
in his official capacity;
Defendants.
22
23
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2011, Plaintiff Kevin Marilley propounded his first set of
24
requests for production of documents on Defendant Director of the Department of Fish and Game
25
(“DFG Director”), in his official capacity;
26
27
28
WHEREAS, to the extent Plaintiff seeks documents identifying persons who have paid a
nonresident fee in connection with the purchase or renewal of one or more of four California
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (11-CV-2418)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
commercial fishing licenses, permits, or registrations, these identifying documents are
confidential documents under California Fish and Game Code section 8022(a);
WHEREAS, Fish and Game Code section 8022(b) provides that “the department may
release the confidential information . . . pursuant to a court order[.]”;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs assert that they need the identifying information described above to
prepare their class certification motion due January 5, 2012, and potentially for other purposes
going to the merits;
WHEREAS, DFG Director does not oppose a Court order allowing him to release the
confidential documents in compliance with Fish and Game Code section 8022(b), pursuant to and
within the scope of a proper discovery request in this case.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.
Pursuant to and within the scope of a proper discovery request in this case, DFG
Director is authorized to release any document designated as confidential under Fish and Game
Code section 8022(a).
2.
To the extent DFG Director produces documents containing identifying information,
including names and contact information, for nonresident fishermen, Plaintiffs agree to keep the
information confidential.
3.
Plaintiffs agree not to use the information deemed confidential to contact anyone
identified in these documents unless and until (a) the Court certifies a class in this matter, or (b)
the Court modifies this order.
4.
Nothing in this stipulation and [proposed] order shall prevent or limit Plaintiffs from
communicating with persons whose contact information Plaintiffs independently possess or
acquire.
5.
Nothing in this stipulation and [proposed] order shall prevent Defendants from
objecting to, or otherwise opposing, any discovery request by Plaintiffs.
6.
Nothing in this stipulation and [proposed] order shall be deemed to constitute any
agreement, admission, or consent by Plaintiffs concerning the propriety or legal basis of the
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (11-CV-2418)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
limitations described in Paragraph 3, and Defendants shall be barred from introducing the fact
that counsel for Plaintiffs executed this stipulation and [proposed] order in support of any
argument concerning the propriety or legal basis of the limitations described in Paragraph 3,
including but not limited to any motion by Plaintiffs for sanctions.
7.
Plaintiffs further agree not to duplicate any information deemed confidential except to
the extent necessary to utilize the confidential documents for the purposes for which they are
being released.
8.
Plaintiffs further agree to destroy the original and any duplicates of any confidential
information within 60 days of the Court’s denial of class certification or, if the class is certified,
within 60 days of a final determination of this case, including any appeals.
9.
Plaintiffs’ counsel certifies that procedures are in place at his firm, office or other
places where he conduct business, as well as at his residence if he takes the data home in any
form, to prevent unauthorized disclosure of the confidential information.
10.
If any confidential identifying information subject to this protective order is lost,
stolen, or misplaced while in the custody of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs shall notify DFG Director in
writing of any such occurrences.
17
18
19
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Dated: November 30, 2011
20
21
22
23
/s/ Cecilia L. Dennis
CECILIA L. DENNIS
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for All Defendants
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (11-CV-2418)
1
Dated: November 29, 2011
GROSS LAW
2
3
Original Signed by S. Gross
______________________________
Stuart G. Gross (SBN 251019)
sgross@gross-law.com
The Embarcadero, Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 671-4628
Facsimile: (415) 480-6688
4
5
6
7
8
Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class
9
UNIT
ED
S
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED,
11
ER
16
A
H
15
M. Ryu
LI
RT
SF2011201820
onna
Judge D
FO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONNA RYU
NO
14
December 1, 2011
R NIA
D
RDERE
S SO O
_________________________________
IT I
12
13
RT
U
O
10
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (11-CV-2418)
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?