Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03437/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03437-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

USDC NO.: C04-3437 TEH

1 n:\lit\li2005\051251\00329098.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 

JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961

Chief Trial Deputy 

SEAN F. CONNOLLY, State Bar #152235 

DAVID B. NEWDORF, State Bar #172960

Deputy City Attorneys 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3863 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

E-Mail: sean.connolly@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ORLANDO BACON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO; CHIEF OF POLICE 

HEATHER FONG; OFFICER ALEX 

FAGAN, JR. (#1942); OFFICER 

GARCIA (#42); OFFICER GARCIA 

(#1788), OFFICER GOODWIN (#1577); 

OFFICER MORGADO (#466); OFFICER 

KACZMARCZYK (#1896); OFFICER 

DESHONG (#304); OFFICER 

MCMAHON (#106); SERGEANT 

O'SULLIVAN (#1422); and DOES 1-40, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 04-3437 TEH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION 

The parties to this action, by and through counsel, STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 

1. Information and records contained in the personnel files of San Francisco Police 

Officers (or former officers) shall be treated as confidential in this litigation. Those records are 

hereinafter referred to as “CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION.” 

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 67 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

USDC NO.: C04-3437 TEH

2 n:\lit\li2005\051251\00329098.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

These records include but are not limited to police officers’ home addresses and complaints and 

discipline records contained in the files of the San Francisco Police Department and/or the Office of 

Citizens’ Complaints. 

2. The CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION shall not 

be exhibited, displayed or otherwise disclosed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel (or authorized persons described 

in paragraph 4) to other persons except as specifically provided herein. 

3. Home addresses of San Francisco Police Officers (or former officers) (“HOME 

ADDRESSES”) shall be used by Plaintiff’s Counsel only to serve summonses and complaints on 

individual defendants in this action. Within the office of Plaintiff’s Counsel, HOME ADDRESSES 

shall be treated as confidential “Attorney’s Eyes Only” information and any documents containing 

HOME ADDRESSES shall be maintained in sealed envelopes marked “CONFIDENTIAL – 

ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” Plaintiff’s Counsel may 

not disclose HOME ADDRESSES to anyone except a process server in order to serve summonses 

and complaints on individual defendants in this action. Any process server who obtains a HOME 

ADDRESSES shall be required to sign the NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT attached as Exhibit 

A to this Order. Plaintiff’s Counsel shall not disclose HOME ADDRESSES to Plaintiff Orlando 

Bacon. Any return of summons or proof of service of Summons and Complaint in this case that 

contains HOME ADDRESSES shall be filed under seal pursuant to this Order and the Court’s rules 

and procedures (see Civil Local Rule 79-5). 

4. Except for HOME ADDRESSES, Plaintiff’s Counsel may exhibit and/or disclose 

CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION only to the following 

categories of person and no others unless authorized by order of the Court: 

 a. Plaintiff’s Counsel; 

 b. A witness who was the complainant against a San Francisco Police Officer 

involved in this case may view his or her complaint and documents concerning his or her complaint, 

but may not view complaints concerning other complainants. The limitation of this paragraph 

includes Plaintiff Orlando Bacon, who may view records concerning his own complaint(s) (if such 

document(s) exist(s)) only in the presence of Plaintiff’s Counsel and may not receive originals or 

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 67 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

USDC NO.: C04-3437 TEH

3 n:\lit\li2005\051251\00329098.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

copies of any CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION. This 

paragraph also does not prevent Plaintiff Orlando Bacon from receiving copies of his own written 

complaint(s) submitted to the Office of Citizens Complaints (if such document(s) exist(s)). This 

paragraph does not prevent counsel from discussing the contents of CONFIDENTIAL POLICE 

OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION with Plaintiff Orlando Bacon for purposes connected with 

the litigation. 

 c. Experts, investigators or consultants retained by Plaintiff’s Counsel to assist in 

the evaluation, preparation, or trial of this case. Before any expert, investigator, or consultant is 

permitted to review the CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION, such 

individual must agree to comply with the terms of this Protective Order by executing the NON 

DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT attached as Exhibit A to this Order. Plaintiffs’ Counsel may make 

one copy of CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION for each such 

individual. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall retain the original of all NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS 

for five years after the conclusion of this litigation, whether through final judgment, appeal, or by 

whatever means resolved. Experts, investigators, and consultants shall not have any power to 

authorize further disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL 

INFORMATION to any other person. 

5. Nothing contained in this order shall prohibit any person, including any persons 

described in 4(a-c) above, from using or referring to CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION in motion papers or pleadings filed with the Court, provided that 

adequate provision is made to protect the confidentiality of the CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION and provided that any portion of such motion papers or legal 

pleadings that reference said CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION 

is filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s rules and procedures (see Civil Local Rule 79-5). 

6. At the conclusion of this litigation, through final judgment, appeal, or by whatever 

means resolved, all persons subject to this Order (including experts, investigators or consultants) shall 

return all copies of the CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION to 

counsel for the City. 

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 67 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

USDC NO.: C04-3437 TEH

4 n:\lit\li2005\051251\00329098.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

7. Unless disclosure is ordered by the Court, attorneys for Defendants shall have the sole 

authority to determine that documents subject to the Protective Order are no longer considered 

CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION and will advise counsel for 

plaintiff in writing if this determination is made. Plaintiff may challenge defendants’ designation of a 

particular document as CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION by 

filing a noticed motion or a motion for administrative relief under Civ. L.R. 7-11 or by any other 

procedure directed by the Court. The parties agree that the prevailing party in a motion to remove the 

confidential designation shall waive its entitlement to monetary sanctions, including attorney’s fees. 

8. In the event of any unauthorized disclosure as set forth herein, the City and County of 

San Francisco reserves the right to seek appropriate sanction of the Court. 

AGREED AND STIPULATED: 

Dated: August 29, 2005 DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER 

Chief Trial Attorney 

SEAN F. CONNOLLY 

DAVID B. NEWDORF 

By: /s/ 

DAVID B. NEWDORF 

Attorneys for Defendant

DATED: August 29, 2005 LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL A. ROBINSON 

By: /s/ 

RUSSELL A. ROBINSON 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

The undersigned counsel certifies that he has obtained approval by e-mail to e-file this 

Stipulation on behalf of counsel for all parties. 

 /s/ 

DAVID B. NEWDORF 

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 67 Filed 08/30/05 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 

USDC NO.: C04-3437 TEH

5 n:\lit\li2005\051251\00329098.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

ORDER 

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _________________ __________________________ 

 Hon. Thelton E. Henderson 

 United States District Judge 

08/30/05

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:04-cv-03437-TEH Document 67 Filed 08/30/05 Page 5 of 5