Bashaw et al v. Johnson

Filing 30

PROTECTIVE ORDER. The court finds good cause to enter the protective order submitted by the parties with modifications to paragraph five to comply with the District of Kansas Guidelines for Agreed Protective Orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/12/2012. (est)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

BROOKE BASHAW,
KATIE SELLERS and
LAUREN SPALSBURY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO. 11- 2693-JWL

JEREMIAH JOHNSON,
Defendant.

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
ON STIPULATION OF the parties to this action, it is ORDERED that:
1.

This case involves allegations of digital videos that were allegedly stored on

computer and electronic equipment used in the daily operations of a law firm. The parties to this
action were employees of the law firm. As such, the correspondence and interactions of the
parties involves confidential information of the clients of the law firm that are not parties to this
action. Further, the computers and electronic equipment that is or may be the subject of
discovery in this action also contain confidential information of the clients of the law firm.
Hence, appropriate safeguards are required to protect the interests of third persons that are not a
party to this action.
2.

All Confidential Information produced or exchanged in the course of this

litigation may be used by the receiving party solely for the purpose of this litigation.
3.

Additional disclosure beyond the terms of this Order may be made if the party

designating the information as Confidential Information consents in writing, or if the court, after
notice to all affected parties, orders this additional disclosure.

4.

In designating information as confidential, the supplying party shall make this

designation only as to that information which it in good faith believes is confidential. A party is
not obligated to challenge the propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time it is made,
and a failure to do so does not preclude a party from making a subsequent challenge. If, at any
stage of this litigation, any party to this litigation disagrees with the designation by the supplying
party of any information as confidential, the parties shall first make a good faith effort to resolve
the dispute informally. If they cannot resolve the dispute, the objecting party may seek
appropriate relief from this court. The parties may by stipulation provide for exceptions to this
order, and any party may seek an order of this court modifying this Order. The present Order is
without prejudice to either party to bring before the court at any time the question of whether any
particular information is or is not in fact confidential information. The party asserting
Confidential Information has the burden of establishing that it is properly marked as such.
Nothing may be regarded as Confidential Information if it is information that:
(a)

Is in the public domain at the time of disclosure as evidenced by a written
document; or

(b)

Becomes part of the public domain, through no fault of the other party, as
evidenced by a written document; or

(c)

Was in the possession of the receiving party at the time of disclosure,
provided that the receiving party can show this by written document.

5.

Nothing in this Order prevents a party from using any document or information

which has been designated CONFIDENTIAL UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER at trial, during a
hearing, or the like. However, if any confidential documents or information are used for these

Page 2

purposes, the party seeking to file confidential information must first file a motion with the court
and be granted leave to file the particular document under seal.
6.

Any document that contains information that is protected by the attorney/client

privilege of a third person that is not a party to this litigation, or any electronic device that
contains electronically stored information that is protected by the attorney/client privilege of a
third person that is not a party to this litigation shall be produced to an independent third person
as designated by the agreement of the parties for review and analysis as to any information
contained in the document or device that is or could be relevant to this action. To the extent that
any such document or information is determined to be potentially relevant to this litigation, the
document or information shall be delivered to the court for an in camera review and
determination of relevancy and the appropriate protections of the interests of the third person non
party holding the attorney/client privilege prior to dissemination to the remaining parties to this
action.
7.

Nothing in this order shall be construed as an agreement or admission that (1) any

information, document or the like designated as “CONFIDENTIAL UNDER PROTECTIVE
ORDER” by an opposite party is, in fact, confidential or a trade secret; or that (2) the document,
information, or the like is competent, relevant or material. Furthermore, neither the entry into this
Order, nor the designation or failure to make a designation of any information, document or the
like as Confidential Information, constitutes evidence with respect to any issue in this litigation.

Page 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 12, 2012, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U. S. Magistrate Judge

Accepted and agreed to:
_/s/Scott Waddell____________________
A. Scott Waddell
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BROOKE BASHAW
_/s/Jason P. Roth____________________
Jason P. Roth
Patrick Copley
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF KATIE SELLERS
_/s/Anne Schiavone__________________
Anne Schiavone
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF LAUREN SPALSBURY
_/s/Richard Merker__________________
Richard Merker
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT JEREMIAH JOHNSON

_/s/Mark D. Chuning_________________
Michael E. McCausland
MO#29950
Mark D. Chuning
KS#20882
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT JEREMIAH JOHNSON

Page 4