Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00089/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00089-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

1

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

MARIO U. ZAMORA, #258721

CHRISTINA G. Di FILIPPO, #327255

GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB,

DOWD & GIN, L.L.P.

111 E. Seventh Street

Hanford, CA 93230

Telephone: (559) 584-6656

Facsimile: (559) 582-3106

E-mails: zamora@griswoldlasalle.com; difilippo@griswoldlasalle.com

Attorneys for: Defendants, City of Hanford, Hanford Police Department, Parker Sever, Jeff 

Davis, Stephanie Huddleston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1. STIPULATION

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

respective counsel of record, that in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents 

which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, 

and privacy rights, the Parties stipulate as follows:

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1. “Challenging Party”: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information 

or items under this Order.

2.2. “Confidential”: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or 

tangible things in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that 

such information qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

JASON STINGLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF HANFORD, CITY OF HANFORD 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARKER SEVER, 

in his individual capacity; JEFF DAVIS, in his 

individual capacity; STEPHANIE 

HUDDLESTON, in her individual capacity; 

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 1 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

2

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

2.3. “Confidential Materials”: any Documents, Testimony or Information as defined below 

designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the provisions of this Stipulation and Protective 

Order.

2.4. “Counsel” (without qualifier): any attorney with a firm who has appeared as the attorney 

of record in this action (as well as their support staff).

2.5. “Designating Party”: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 

produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “confidential”.

2.6. “Disclose” or “Disclosure” or “Discovery Material”: all items or information, regardless 

of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 

among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), produced or generated in 

disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

2.7. “Document”: all “Writings” and “Records” as those terms are defined in Rule 34 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 

including, but not limited to, all writings and records of every type and description 

including, but not limited to, contracts, agreements, correspondence, memoranda, letters, 

facsimiles, electronic mail (“e-mail”), records of telephone conversations, handwritten 

and typewritten notes of any kind, statements, reports, minutes, recordings, transcripts 

and summaries of meetings, voice recordings, pictures, photographs, drawings, computer 

cards, tapes, discs, printouts and records of all types, studies, instruction manuals, policy 

manuals and statements, books, pamphlets, invoices, canceled checks and every other 

device or medium by which or through which information of any type is transmitted, 

recorded or preserved which have been produced in discovery in this Proceeding by any 

person. Without any limitation on the foregoing, the term “DOCUMENT” shall include 

all copies that differ in any respect from the original or other versions of the 

DOCUMENT, including, but not limited to, all drafts, reproductions, summaries, and 

copies of such drafts or originals containing initials, comments, notations, insertions, 

corrections, marginal notes, amendments or any other variation of any kind.

2.8. “Expert”: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 2 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

3

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or 

as a consultant in this action.

2.9. “Information”: means the content of Documents or Testimony.

2.10. “Non-Party”: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 

entity not named as a party to this action

2.11. “Outside Counsel of Record”: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action 

but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this 

action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on 

behalf of that party.

2.12. “Party”: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 

consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs).

2.13. “Proceeding”: the above-entitled proceeding (Case No. 1:23-cv-0089).

2.14. “Producing Party”: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material 

in this action.

2.15. “Professional Vendors”: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., 

photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and 

organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and 

subcontractors.

2.16. “Protected Material”: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 

“CONFIDENTIAL.”

2.17. “Receiving Party”: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 

Producing Party.

2.18. “Testimony”: means all depositions, declarations or other testimony taken or used in this 

Proceeding.

3. SCOPE

This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 

discovery, and the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 

information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 3 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

4

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 

Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 

Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be 

applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal.

The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material 

(as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) 

all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 

conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 

However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following 

information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a 

Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as 

a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the 

public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party 

prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who 

obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating 

Party. Use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order.

4. DURATION

Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by 

this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court 

order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all 

claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after 

the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this 

action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time 

pursuant to applicable law.

5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL

5.1. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or NonParty that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care 

to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 4 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

5

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of 

material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify – so that other 

portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not 

warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations shown to 

be clearly unjustified or have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily 

encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and 

burdens on other parties) expose the Designating Party to sanctions.

If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated 

for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must, in writing, 

promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation.

5.2. Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order (see, 

e.g., second paragraph of section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, 

Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be 

clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. All designations in 

conformity with this Order should not obscure or interfere with the legibility of the 

designated Information and requires:

5.2.1. for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but 

excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the 

Producing Party affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” to each page that contains 

protected material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 

protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 

(e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents or materials available for 

inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party 

has indicated which material it would like copied and produced. During the 

inspection and before the designation, all of the material made available for 

inspection shall be deemed “CONFIDENTIAL.” After the inspecting Party has 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 5 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

6

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

identified the documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must 

determine which documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this 

Order. Then, before producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must 

affix the “CONFIDENTIAL” legend to each page that contains Protected 

Material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 

protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 

(e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

5.2.2. For Testimony given in depositions the Designating Party may either:

5.2.2.1. specify all portions of the Testimony that qualify as “Confidential;” or

5.2.2.2. designate the entirety of the Testimony at the deposition as “Confidential” (before 

the deposition is concluded) with the right to identify more specific portions of 

the Testimony as to which protection is sought within 7 days following receipt of 

the deposition transcript. Where portions of the deposition Testimony are 

designated for protection, the transcript pages containing “Confidential” 

Information may be separately bound by the court reporter, who must affix to the 

top of each page the legend “Confidential,” as instructed by the Designating Party.

5.2.3. for information produced in some form other than documentary and for any other 

tangible items, including, without limitation, compact discs or DVDS, that the 

Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the container or 

containers in which the information or item is stored the legend “CONFIDENTIAL.” 

If only a portion or portions of the information or item warrant protection, the 

Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the protected portion(s).

5.3. Inadvertent Failures to Designate. The inadvertent production by any of the undersigned 

Parties or non-Parties to the Proceedings of any Document, Testimony or Information 

during discovery in this Proceeding without a “Confidential” designation, shall be 

without prejudice to any claim that such item is “Confidential” and such Party shall not 

be held to have waived any rights by such inadvertent production. If any Document, 

Testimony or Information that is subject to a “Confidential” designation is inadvertently 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 6 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

7

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

produced without such designation, the Party that inadvertently produced the document 

shall give written notice of such inadvertent production within ten (10) days of discovery 

of the inadvertent production, together with a further copy of the subject Document, 

Testimony or Information designated as “Confidential” (the “Inadvertent Production 

Notice”). Upon receipt of such Inadvertent Production Notice, the Party that received the 

inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information shall promptly destroy the 

inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information and all copies thereof, or, 

at the expense of the producing Party, return such together with all copies of such 

Document, Testimony or Information to counsel for the producing Party and shall retain 

only the “Confidential” designated Materials. Should the receiving Party choose to 

destroy such inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information, the receiving 

Party shall notify the producing Party in writing of such destruction within ten (10) days 

of receipt of written notice of the inadvertent production. This provision is not intended 

to apply to any inadvertent production of any Information protected by attorney-client or 

work product privileges. If this provision conflicts with any applicable law regarding 

waiver of confidentiality through the inadvertent production of Documents, Testimony 

or Information, such law shall govern.

6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS

6.1. Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of 

confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s 

confidentiality designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, 

unnecessary economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a 

Party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to 

mount a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed.

6.2. In the event that counsel for a Party receiving Documents, Testimony or Information in 

discovery designated as “Confidential” objects to such designation with respect to any or 

all of such items, said counsel shall advise counsel for the Designating Party, in writing, 

of such objections, the specific Documents, Testimony or Information to which each 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 7 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

8

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

objection pertains, and the specific reasons and support for such objections (the 

“Designation Objections”). Counsel for the Designating Party shall have ten (10) days 

from receipt of the written Designation Objections to either (a) agree in writing to dedesignate Documents, Testimony or Information pursuant to any or all of the Designation 

Objections and/or (b) file a motion with the Court seeking to uphold any or all 

designations on Documents, Testimony or Information addressed by the Designation 

Objections (the “Designation Motion”). Pending a resolution of the Designation Motion 

by the Court, any and all existing designations on the Documents, Testimony or 

Information at issue in such Motion shall remain in place. The Designating Party shall 

have the burden on any Designation Motion of establishing the applicability of its 

“Confidential” designation. In the event that the Designation Objections are neither 

timely agreed to nor timely addressed in the Designation Motion, then such Documents, 

Testimony or Information shall be de-designated in accordance with the Designation 

Objection applicable to such material.

7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

7.1. Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or 

produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only for 

prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle litigation related to the underlying events 

alleged in this Action. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories 

of persons and under the conditions described in this Order. When the litigation has been 

terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of section 12 below 

(FINAL DISPOSITION).

Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location and 

in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this 

Order.

7.2. Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the 

court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose 

any information or item designated “CONFIDENTIAL” only to:

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 8 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

9

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

7.2.1. the Receiving Party’s Counsel, as well as employees of said Counsel to whom it is 

reasonably necessary to disclose the information\;

7.2.2. the Receiving Party and its officers, directors, and employees\;

7.2.3. Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is 

reasonably necessary for this litigation;

7.2.4. the court and its personnel;

7.2.5. court reporters and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and 

Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary;

7.2.6. during their depositions, witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is reasonably 

necessary, unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the court. 

Pages of transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal 

Protected Material must be separately bound by the court reporter and may not be 

disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this Stipulated Protective Order.

7.2.7. the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a custodian or 

other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information.

8. A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IN THIS 

LITIGATION

8.1. The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a Non-Party in this 

action and designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” Such information produced by Non-Parties 

in connection with this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief provided by this 

Order. Nothing in these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party from 

seeking additional protections.

8.2. In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to produce a Non-Party’s 

confidential information in its possession, and the Party is subject to an agreement with 

the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s confidential information, then the Party 

shall:

8.2.1. promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party that some or all of 

the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement with a Non-Party;

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 9 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

10

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

8.2.2. promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated Protective Order in this 

litigation, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of 

the information requested; and

8.2.3. make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-Party.

8.3. If the Non-Party fails to object or seek a protective order from this court within 7 days of 

receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party may produce 

the Non-Party’s confidential information responsive to the discovery request. If the NonParty timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall not produce any 

information in its possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality agreement 

with the Non-Party before a determination by the court. Absent a court order to the 

contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in this 

court of its Protected Material.

9. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected 

Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Stipulated Protective 

Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the 

unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the 

Protected Material, and (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were 

made of all the terms of this Order.

10. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED 

MATERIAL

When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain inadvertently 

produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection, the obligations of the 

Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This 

provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery 

order that provides for production without prior privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 502(d) and (e), insofar as the parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure of 

a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 10 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

11

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

protection, the parties may incorporate their agreement in the stipulated protective order 

submitted to the court.

11. MISCELLANEOUS

11.1. Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any person to seek its 

modification by the court in the future.

11.2. Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this Protective Order no 

Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or producing any 

information or item on any ground not addressed in this Stipulated Protective Order. 

Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any ground to use in evidence of any of 

the material covered by this Protective Order.

11.3. Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the Designating Party or a 

court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file 

in the public record any Protected Material. This Stipulated Protective Order does not 

limit the admissibility or relevance of any Protected Material or limit the jurisdiction of 

any court that may be asked to determine whether Protected Material may be used in any 

other action. A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply 

with Civil Local Rule 141. Protected Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a 

court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at issue. If a 

Receiving Party's request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the court, then 

the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless otherwise 

instructed by the court.

11.4. This Stipulation and Protective Order is entered into without prejudice to the right of any 

Party to knowingly waive the applicability of this Stipulation and Protective Order to any 

Confidential Materials designated by that Party. If the Designating Party uses 

Confidential Materials in a non-Confidential manner, then the Designating Party shall 

advise that the designation no longer applies.

11.5. This Stipulation and Protective Order was negotiated by the Parties who have agreed to 

the following further limitations:

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 11 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

12

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

11.5.1. Defendants shall produce copies of Defendant Parker Sever, Jeff Davis and Stephanie 

Huddleston’s personnel files with redactions to protect personal information of said 

defendants, including but not limited to address, social security numbers, phone 

numbers, medical information of said defendants and their family members or as 

otherwise agreed to by the parties;

11.5.2. Defendants shall produce any internal affairs investigation files for each of the said 

defendants responsive to Plaintiff’s request subject to redactions for confidential 

informant information;

11.5.3. All information produced during discovery pursuant to this Order shall be used only 

for the purposes of this civil case.

11.5.4. Information or documents produced shall not be provided to any person other than 

counsel for Plaintiff in this matter and Plaintiff;

11.5.5. All information produced during discovery shall only be available for viewing to 

Plaintiff while incarcerated; and

11.5.6. This order takes no position on the admissibility of any information or documents 

subject to this order in Plaintiff’s criminal actions in the Superior Court of the State 

of California.

12. FINAL DISPOSITION

Within 90 days after the final disposition of this action, as defined in paragraph 4, each 

Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such 

material. As used in this subdivision, “all Protected Material” includes all copies, abstracts, 

compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected 

Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must 

submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the 

Designating Party) by the 90 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all 

the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party 

has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing 

or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, Counsel are entitled 

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 12 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

13

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing 

transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, 

attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain 

Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain 

subject to this Protective Order as set forth in Section 4 (DURATION).

Dated: May 3, 2024 GRISWOLD, LaSALLE, COBB, 

DOWD & GIN, L.L.P.

By: /s/ Christina G. Di Filippo

CHRISTINA G. DI FILIPPO

Attorneys for: Defendants, City of Hanford, 

Hanford Police Department, Parker Sever, Jeff 

Davis, Stephanie Huddleston

Dated: May 3, 2024 Law Offices of Bonner and Bonner

By: /s/ A. Cabral Bonner

CHARLES A. BONNER

A. CABRAL BONNER

Attorneys for: Plaintiff, Jason Stingley

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 13 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

14

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 3, 2024, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed 

using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all 

attorneys of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service:

Charles A. Bonner, cbonner799@aol.com

A. Cabral Bonner, cabral@bonnerlaw.com

Law Offices of Bonner & Bonner

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Daniela Beccari

DANIELA BECCARI

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 14 of 15
GRISWOLD, LaSALLE,

COBB, DOWD &

GIN, LLP

111 E. SEVENTH STREET

HANFORD, CA 93230

15

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Stingley v. City of Hanford, et al.

Eastern District Court Case Number 1:23-cv-00089-BAM

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

ORDER

Having considered the above stipulation and finding good cause, the Court adopts the 

signed stipulated protective order.

The parties are advised that pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court, Eastern District of California, any documents subject to the protective order to be filed 

under seal must be accompanied by a written request which complies with Local Rule 141 prior 

to sealing. The party making a request to file documents under seal shall be required to show 

good cause for documents attached to a non-dispositive motion or compelling reasons for 

documents attached to a dispositive motion. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 

677-78 (9th Cir. 2009). Within five (5) days of any approved document filed under seal, the 

party shall file a redacted copy of the sealed document. The redactions shall be narrowly 

tailored to protect only the information that is confidential or was deemed confidential. 

Additionally, the parties shall consider resolving any dispute arising under the 

protective order according to the Court’s informal discovery dispute procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00089-KES-BAM Document 27 Filed 05/06/24 Page 15 of 15