Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

____________________________

Stipulated Protective Order

James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853

James J. Arendt, Esq. Bar No. 142937

THE LAW FIRM OF

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF,

ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, MARCUS TAFOYA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ and REBECCA

RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO; MARCUS TAFOYA,

individually and as an officer of the Fresno

Police Department; and DOES 1 through 50,

inclusive, 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01017-OWW-DLB

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Complaint Filed: August 8, 2005

Trial Date: September 26, 2006

WHEREAS, the Court has ordered the Defendant City of Fresno (“the City”) to produce

certain documents under a Stipulated Protective Order in its April 6, 2006 Order Granting in

Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (see Order at 5:22-6:22, 7:2-14);

WHEREAS, the City believes, in good faith, that certain documents requested by the

Plaintiffs contain information that is: (a) confidential, sensitive, or potentially invasive of an

individual’s privacy interests; (b) not generally known; and (c) not normally revealed to the

public or third parties or, if disclosed to third parties, would require such third parties to

maintain the information in confidence;

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

____________________________

Stip2ulated Protective Order

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by, among and between the parties hereto through their

counsel of record, and plaintiff DAVID ANTHONY RENDON, in pro per, in Rendon v. City of

Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-00661-OWW-DLB, whose civil action has been consolidated

with this action for discovery purposes, that those portions of the documents described above

may be designated as “Confidential” by the City and produced subject to the following

Protective Order:

1. The disclosed documents shall be used solely in connection with the civil case of

Gabriel Rodriguez, et al., v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-01017-OWW-DLB (E.D.

Cal.), Rendon v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-00661-OWW-DLB (E.D. Cal), and in

the preparation and trial of these cases, or any related proceeding. 

2. A party producing the documents and materials described above may designate

those materials by affixing a mark labeling them as “Confidential.” If any “Confidential”

materials cannot be labeled with the aforementioned marking, those materials shall be placed in

a sealed envelope or other container that is in turn marked “Confidential” in a manner agreed

upon by the disclosing and requesting parties.

3. Documents or materials designated under this Protective Order as “Confidential”

may only be disclosed to the following persons: 

a) Counsel for Plaintiffs GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ and REBECCA

RODRIGUEZ;

b) Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by

counsel referred to in subpart (a) directly above, including stenographic deposition reporters or

videographers retained in connection with this action;

c) Court personnel including stenographic reporters or videographers

engaged in proceedings as are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial of the civil

action; 

d) Any expert or consultant retained in connection with this action;

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

____________________________

Stip3ulated Protective Order

e) The finder of fact at the time of trial, subject to the court’s rulings on in

limine motions and objections of counsel; 

f) Plaintiffs GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ and REBECCA RODRIGUEZ, to the

extent reasonably necessary to assist their counsel in this litigation or for their counsel to advise

them with respect to the litigation. Plaintiffs GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ and REBECCA

RODRIGUEZ are not to disclose “Confidential” information or materials to any other persons

without prior court permission or by prior stipulation by the City; and

g) Plaintiff DAVID ANTHONY RENDON, in pro per, and any counsel that

he may retain in connection with this matter. Plaintiff DAVID ANTHONY RENDON is not to

disclose these documents to any other persons without prior court permission or by prior

stipulation by the City. Before DAVID ANTHONY RENDON discloses any “Confidential”

information or materials to his paralegal, that paralegal shall agree on the record or in writing to

abide by the terms of this Protective Order, as provided in Paragraph Seven below. 

4. All documents or materials designated as “Confidential” pursuant to this

Protective Order, and all papers or documents containing information or materials designated as

“Confidential,” that are filed with the Court for any purpose shall be filed and served under seal

5. The designation of information as “Confidential,” and the subsequent production

thereof, is without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose the admissibility of the

designated information.

6. A party may apply to the Court for an order that information or materials labeled

“Confidential” are not, in fact, confidential. Prior to so applying, the party seeking to reclassify

“Confidential” information shall meet and confer with the producing party. Until the matter is

resolved by the parties or the Court, the information in question shall continue to be treated

according to its designation under the terms of this Order. The producing party shall have the

burden of establishing the propriety of the “Confidential” designation. A party shall not be

obligated to challenge the propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made, and a

failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. 

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

____________________________

Stip4ulated Protective Order

7. Each person to whom disclosure is made, with the exception of counsel, and its

paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel, who are presumed to know the contents of this

Protective Order, shall, prior to the time of disclosure, be provided by the person furnishing him

or her such material, a copy of this Protective Order. Each person to whom disclosure is made

shall agree on the record or in writing that he/she has read the Protective Order and he/she

understands the provisions of the Protective Order. Such person must also consent to be subject

to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, with respect

to any proceeding related to enforcement of this Protective Order, including without limitation,

any proceeding for contempt. Provisions of this Protective Order, insofar as they restrict

disclosure and use of the material, shall be in effect until further order of this Court. 

8. After the conclusion of this litigation, all documents, in whatever form stored or

reproduced, containing “Confidential” information will remain under seal. All parties also

ensure that all persons to whom “Confidential” documents were disclosed shall be destroyed or

returned to the producing party. The conclusion of this litigation means a termination of the

case following applicable post-trial motions, appeal and/or retrial. After the conclusion of this

litigation, all confidential documents received under the provisions of this Protective Order,

including copies made, shall be destroyed, or tendered back to the attorneys for the City.

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: April 18, 2006

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

By: /s/ James D. Weakley 

James D. Weakley, Attorneys for

Defendants

DATED: April 18, 2006

MORRISON & FOERSTER 

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

____________________________

Stip5ulated Protective Order

By: /s/ Kenneth W. Brakebill 

Kenneth W. Brakebill, Attorneys for 

Plaintiffs

DATED: April 18, 2006

By: /s/ David Anthony Rendon 

David Anthony Rendon

In Propria Persona

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/20/06 Page 5 of 5