Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03685-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

 n:\cxlit\li2008\080122\00606625.doc 

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 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 

City Attorney 

DANNY CHOU, State Bar # 180240

Chief of Complex and Special Litigation 

JAMES M. EMERY, State Bar #153630 

ELAINE M. O'NEIL, State Bar #142234 

Deputy City Attorneys 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-4261 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3985 

E-Mail: jim.emery@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IVANA KIROLA, MICHAEL KWOK, and 

ELIZABETH ELFTMAN, on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO ("the CITY"); GAVIN 

NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Mayor; 

AARON PESKIN, in his official capacity as 

President of the Board of Supervisors; JAKE 

MCGOLDRICK, MICHELA ALIOTOPIER, ED JEW, CHRIS DALY, SEAN 

ELSBERND, BEVAN DUFTY, TOM 

AMMIANO, SOPHIE MAXWELL, ROSS 

MIRKARIMI, AND GERARDO 

SANDOVAL, in their official capacities as 

members of the Board of Supervisors, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C07-3685 SBA EMC 

STIPULATION REGARDING 

INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

Trial Date: May 24, 2010 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 94 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

1 n:\cxlit\li2008\080122\00606625.doc 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 Through discovery, plaintiffs have requested production from defendants of substantial 

amounts of information and documents in this case, including electronically stored documents and 

emails. Defendants represent that they have taken reasonable efforts to review electronically stored 

documents and email for information protected by the attorney client privilege, attorney work product 

doctrine or other applicable privileges prior to production. Moreover, defendants have also taken 

reasonable efforts to review the produced files for confidential "personal information," as that term is 

defined in California Civil Code Section 1798.3(a), in its files regarding members of the public, 

including without limitation information regarding disability status and medical condition. However, 

and notwithstanding defendants' efforts to review for privilege and confidentiality, given the volume 

of data to be exchanged and the limited time to complete document productions prior to the close of 

fact discovery under the Court's pretrial scheduling order, it is likely that certain inadvertent 

disclosures may be made. 

 In recognition of these circumstances surrounding the production of electronic documents, 

and for the purpose of enabling the document productions to proceed in an expeditious and 

economical manner, the parties stipulate to entry of the following order by the Court: 

 1. Inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents or confidential documents is not 

intended to constitute a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. A claim of inadvertent production is 

not subject to challenge. 

 2. In accordance with California law, plaintiffs shall promptly notify defendants if 

produced material appears to be privileged or confidential, and shall comply with defendants' 

demands to return said materials. Likewise, if defendants discover that privileged or confidential 

material was inadvertently produced to plaintiffs, they shall promptly notify plaintiffs and plaintiffs 

shall comply with defendants' demands to return said materials. If plaintiffs dispute the privileged or 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 94 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C07-3685 SBA

2 n:\cxlit\li2008\080122\00606625.doc 

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 

confidential status of such a document, all parties agree such documents must be returned to 

defendants pending resolution of the dispute. 

 

DATE: _________________________________ 

 HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

STIPULATION 

 Ivana Kirola and Elizabeth Elftman, through their counsel, and the City and County of 

San Francisco hereby stipulate to entry of the above order in this action. 

APPROVED: 

DATED: January 28, 2010 

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON 

KONECKY 

By: /s/ 

 MARK T. JOHNSON 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: January 28, 2010 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

DANNY CHOU 

Chief of Complex and Special Litigation 

 By: /s/ 

 Elaine M. O'Neil 

Deputy City Attorney 

Attorneys for Defendants City and County of 

San Francisco, et al. 

Case 4:07-cv-03685-SBA Document 94 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 3