Herrera v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 69

ORDER granting 67 Stipulated protective order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GUILLERMO HERRERA III,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15-cv-426-JMG-CRZ

PROTECTIVE ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the training disclosed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad
Company (“Union Pacific”) and marked “Produced Pursuant to Protective Order” be governed
by Federal Rule 26(c)(g) as follows:
1.

Plaintiff and Counsel of Record for Plaintiff agree that anyone working in their
offices on the subject matter will familiarize themselves with the terms of this
Protective Order, and be instructed that they are bound by the Order just as
Plaintiff and Counsel of Record for Plaintiff are bound by the Order.

2.

Union Pacific will provide copies of the subject training requested in Plaintiff’s
discovery entitled, “Leveraging Leader Standard WO” (OPLEAD) and “The UP
Way Intermediate – LEA” (UPILSW), for use by Counsel of Record, consultants,
and experts.

3.

The subject training and the substance of any information obtained therein, are
not to be disseminated by Counsel of Record, their agents, employees,
consultants, experts or any other individuals associated in this lawsuit except as
provided below.

4.

a.

Nothing herein shall prevent the exhibition of the subject training to
persons bound by the terms of this Order. The requirement of such written
agreement may be satisfied by obtaining the signature of any such
consultant or expert on a copy of this Order, having first explained the
contents thereof to such person.

b.

Counsel of record shall maintain a list of the names of all persons to whom
the confidential information is disclosed. This provision will not apply to
such notes, or memoranda, prepared by or for Counsel of Record in this
action.

c.

Such persons shall, by reviewing the training and signing a copy of the
Order, agree to jurisdiction of this Court over their person for the purpose
of any action seeking to enforce the terms and conditions of this Order or
any action for contempt for violation of the terms of this Order.

5.

a.

At any time prior to final judgment, Counsel of Record may file a request
to lift the subject training from this Protective Order.

b.

If there is no agreement, either side may request a hearing in order that the
issue of the Protective Order as to the subject training may be resolved.

c.

The confidential status of all matters shall be permanent except with
regard to those items requested by Counsel of Record to be lifted from the
Protective Order. With regard to such items, the same shall be accorded
confidential status unless and until such time as the Court rules on Counsel
of Records’ request to lift the Protective Order and, thereafter, if the Court
so orders.

6.

Plaintiff and his Counsel of Record, consultants and/or experts shall not advertise
that they have confidential information obtained from Union Pacific through
discovery in this case, and which is subject to this Order whether described
specifically or generally. Neither the training covered by this Order nor the
substantive information contained therein shall be disclosed in any publication or
oral presentation by Plaintiff or his Counsel of Record, consultants, and/or
experts. Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph 5, nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to prevent Counsel of Record from filing a request to lift the
training from this Protective Order.

7.

This Order does not affect any party’s ability to object to the admissibility of any
of the training at trial on relevance or other grounds. Further, Union Pacific shall
retain all rights available to it under applicable Nebraska or federal law in the
event of any inadvertent waiver.

8.

Counsel of record agrees to return all copies of the training to Union Pacific
within thirty (30) days upon entry of a final judgment or dismissal order in this
case.

SIGNED this _____ day of November, 2016.
November 19, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________________________
_______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge