Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00926/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00926-1/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

28

30

31

32

1

STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER

Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)

Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

1010 F Street, Suite 300

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-6911

Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com

paul@markmerin.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOHN M. LUEBBERKE, City Attorney

State Bar No. 164893

NEAL C. LUTTERMAN, Deputy City Attorney

State Bar No. 174681

425 N. El Dorado Street, Second Floor

Stockton, California 95202

Telephone: (209) 937-8333

Facsimile: (209) 937-8898

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

JUAN ANTONIO RUIZ, JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

STIPULATED AGREEMENT

RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL 

RECORDS”; ORDER

INTRODUCTION

On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff Juan Antonio Ruiz, Jr. served Defendants City of Stockton, City of 

Stockton Police Department, Eric Jones, Alejandro Guerrero, and Thomas Quinones (collectively,

“Defendants”) with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. On November 24, 2014, Defendants 

responded to the discovery requests but withheld production of all “personnel records” implicated by 

Plaintiff Juan Antonio Ruiz, Jr.’s discovery requested.

Case 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 4
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

30

31

32

2

STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER

Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

Following meet and confer efforts between the parties’ counsel, the following stipulated 

agreement has been reached.

STIPULATION

1. Defendants agree to provide Plaintiffs with all documents responsive to Plaintiff Juan 

Antonio Ruiz, Jr.’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, subject to any attorney-client 

privileged information and/or information protected under the work-product doctrine.

2. These documents will be specially-designated, and may only be disclosed to counsel, 

parties, and experts within this litigation.

3. If Plaintiffs intend to disclose these specially-designated documents to anyone outside of 

the litigation, Plaintiffs’ counsel will notify Defendants’ counsel as to the particular document(s) they 

intend to disclose.

4. In response, Defendants’ counsel will determine whether or not to seek a protective order, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), regarding the particular document(s). Defendants’ 

counsel will advise Plaintiffs’ counsel and file a motion for protective order within five (5) calendar days 

after Plaintiffs’ counsel provides notification, if Defendants’ counsel intends to subject the document(s) 

to court-ordered protection. 

5. If Plaintiffs’ counsel does not receive notification from Defendants’ counsel regarding 

intent to seek a protective order within five (5) calendar days, the document(s) is no longer subject to this 

stipulated agreement and Plaintiffs’ counsel may distribute the document(s) without limitation.

6. After Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided Defendants’ counsel notification of intent to 

distribute a document(s), Plaintiffs’ counsel agrees that if Defendants’ counsel informs Plaintiffs’ counsel 

that a protective order will be sought within five (5) calendar days and files a motion for protective order, 

Plaintiffs’ counsel will not distribute the document(s) at issue until after the Court has issued a ruling 

regarding whether the document(s) is properly subject to protection under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c).

Case 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 4
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

30

31

32

3

STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER

Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

Dated: December 8, 2014 Respectfully Submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

/s/ Mark E. Merin

By: __________________________________

Mark E. Merin

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: December 8, 2014 Respectfully Submitted,

CITY OF STOCKTON

/s/ Neal C. Lutterman

(as authorized on December 8, 2014)

By: __________________________________

Neal C. Lutterman

Attorney for Defendants 

Case 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 4
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

30

31

32

4

STIPULATED AGREEMENT RE PRODUCTION OF “PERSONNEL RECORDS”; ORDER

Ruiz v. City of Stockton; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. Additionally, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith

(either in person, or at a minimum, by telephone) prior to the filing of a motion for a protective order. 

The court expects the parties to stipulate to a reasonable extension(s) of the five-day period to file a 

motion for a protective order, contemplated above, should it prove necessary to exhaust good faith 

informal meet-and-confer efforts. 

Dated: December 9, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-00926-MCE-KJN Document 18 Filed 12/09/14 Page 4 of 4