Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04480/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04480-9/pdf.json

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

---

PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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 

SCOTT D. WIENER, State Bar #189266 

Deputy City Attorney 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-4283 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CHIEF HEATHER FONG, 

JESSE FARRELL, DAVID RODRIGUEZ, ERICK ANDERSON, DAVID 

BATCHELDER, AJAY SINGH, PATRICK MCCORMICK, STEPHEN 

COLEMAN, AND ANTHONY MONTOYA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HAKIM MUHAMMAD; JOSHUA 

MILLER; BRANDON BIRKS; AND 

STACY RICHARDSON, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, a governmental entity; 

HEATHER FONG, in her capacity as 

Chief of Police for the CITY AND 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; 

SHERMAN LEE, JESSE FARRELL, 

DAVID RODRIGUEZ, ERICK 

ANDERSON, DAVID BATCHELDER, 

AJAY SINGH, PATRICK 

MCCORMICK, STEPHEN COLEMAN, 

and ANTHONY MONTOYA, 

individually, and in their capacity as 

police officers for CITY AND COUNTY 

OF SAN FRANCISCO; and, DOES 10 

through 25, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C06-4480 JSW (JL) 

AMENDED STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] CONFIDENTIALITY 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 8
PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) the parties have met and conferred and 

agree that the discovery of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION in this matter be made pursuant to the 

terms of this PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the parties stipulate, though their attorneys of record, to the 

entry of an order as follows: 

1. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, within the meaning of this 

PROTECTIVE ORDER, shall include all documents containing peace officer 

personnel records, official information and any other such documents that 

defendants in good faith have determined to be confidential. Defendants shall 

attempt to stamp "Confidential" on all such documents prior to production. In 

the event that any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION is inadvertently not 

stamped as "Confidential" by defendants, the party who notices this oversight 

shall immediately make it known to the other parties and the documents shall 

immediately be stamped as "Confidential" and treated as such, as per this 

order. 

2. Plaintiff may challenge defendants’ designation of a particular document as 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by filing an appropriate motion, under 

seal, with the Court. The parties agree that the prevailing party in a motion to 

remove the confidential designation shall waive any entitlement to monetary 

sanctions, including attorney’s fees. 

3. 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 INFORMATION and will 

advise counsel for plaintiff in writing if this determination is made. 

4. Plaintiff’s Counsel may exhibit, discuss, and/or disclose CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION only to the following categories of person and no other 

unless authorized by order of the Court: 

 a. Plaintiff’s Counsel; 

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 8
PROTECTIVE ORDER 3 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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

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

the evaluation, preparation, or trial of this case; however, before any expert, investigator, or 

consultant is permitted to review the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, such individual must agree 

to comply with the terms of this PROTECTIVE ORDER by executing the document attached as 

Exhibit A. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file and serve that document upon its execution; however, 

Plaintiff’s counsel shall not be required to file any Agreement to Comply any earlier than the date that 

Expert Disclosures are required to be made. Experts, investigators, and consultants shall not have 

any power to authorize further disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any other person. 

5. Counsel for Plaintiff may not provide originals or copies of the 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any plaintiff absent the written 

agreement of counsel for the City or a court order, subject to the following: 

 a. For purposes of evaluating the settlement value or potential jury 

verdict, counsel for Plaintiff may discuss the general nature of the 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with plaintiffs without disclosing any 

identifying details about a specific incident or any documents. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel may also review with a plaintiff any statement or interview given by 

that plaintiff. 

6. Unless otherwise stipulated to by defendants, any use of CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION or comment on the substance of any CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION in any papers or pleadings filed with the Court, shall be filed 

under seal pursuant to the Court’s rules and procedures (see Northern District 

of California Civil Local Rule 79-5). The sealed envelopes shall be endorsed 

with the caption of this litigation, and an indication of the nature of the 

contents of the envelopes and a statement substantially in the following form: 

"This envelope contains documents that are filed in this case pursuant to a 

Protective Order and are not to be opened nor the contents thereof to be 

displayed or revealed except by further order of the Court or written consent of 

the City and County of San Francisco." 

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 8
PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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. In the event any person desires to exhibit documents or disclose 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION covered under this stipulation during trial 

or pretrial proceedings, such person shall meet and confer with counsel for 

defendants to reach an agreement, in accordance with the Court’s rules and 

procedures, on an appropriate method for disclosure, and if defendants do not 

agree to such disclosure, such CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall not be 

disclosed unless authorized by order of the Court. Unless otherwise agreed, 

transcripts and exhibits that incorporate or reference CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION covered under this stipulation shall be treated as 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION that is subject to the provisions of this 

PROTECTIVE ORDER. The Court Reporter shall mark as “Confidential” any 

deposition or hearing transcript that contains any CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION or any reference to CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 

8. Any inadvertent disclosure made in violation of this PROTECTIVE ORDER 

shall be immediately corrected by the offending party and does not constitute a 

waiver of the terms of this PROTECTIVE ORDER, except by written 

agreement of the parties, or further order of this Court. 

9. All documents covered by this PROTECTIVE ORDER and copies thereof 

(including those in the possession of experts, consultants, etc.) will be returned 

to the San Francisco City Attorney's Office at the termination of this litigation. 

On final disposition of this case, plaintiff’s counsel shall within 30 days after 

the final disposition of this case, without request or further order of this Court, 

return all CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to the Deputy City Attorney of 

record in this matter. The provisions of this PROTECTIVE ORDER shall, 

without further order of the Court, continue to be binding after the conclusion 

of the action, and this Court will have jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this 

PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 4 of 8
PROTECTIVE ORDER 5 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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

10. Should plaintiff(s) fail to comply with this PROTECTIVE ORDER, plaintiff(s) 

and plaintiffs' counsel shall be liable for all costs associated with enforcing this 

agreement, including but not limited to all attorney fees in amounts to be 

determined by the Court. Plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel may also be subject 

to additional sanctions or remedial measures, such as contempt, evidentiary or 

terminating sanctions. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: _June 22, 2007___________ DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER 

Chief Trial Attorney 

SCOTT D. WIENER 

Deputy City Attorney 

 /s/ Scott D. Wiener 

By: 

SCOTT D. WIENER 

Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF 

SAN FRANCISCO, CHIEF HEATHER FONG, JESSE 

FARRELL, DAVID RODRIGUEZ, ERICK 

ANDERSON, DAVID BATCHELDER, AJAY SINGH, 

PATRICK MCCORMICK, STEPHEN COLEMAN, 

AND ANTHONY MONTOYA 

Dated: _June 13, 2007___________ /s/ Gayla Libet 

By: 

GAYLA LIBET 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: _June 21, 2007___________ /s/ John Burris 

By: 

JOHN BURRIS 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: _June 22, 2007___________ /s/ Robert Sanford 

By: 

ROBERT SANFORD 

Attorneys for Defendant Sherman Lee 

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 5 of 8
PROTECTIVE ORDER 6 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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 

 BASED ON THE ABOVE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: 

 THE HONORABLE JAMES LARSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 6 of 8
PROTECTIVE ORDER 7 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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

EXHIBIT A

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 7 of 8
PROTECTIVE ORDER 8 n:\lit\li2007\070184\00421643.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

AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

 I, , have read and understand the Court’s Protective Order for 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. I agree to abide by all terms of the Order. In addition, I 

specifically understand and agree to the following: 

 1. I will not disclose the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any other person. 

 2. I understand that I have no power to authorize any other person to review the 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 

 3. I agree not to make copies of the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 

 4. I agree to return the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to the counsel for the party that 

produced it, at or before the conclusion of this litigation. 

 5. I understand that if I violate any of the terms of the Protective Order, then Plaintiffs, 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and I may be subject to sanctions or possible contempt. 

AGREED: 

 _________________________ 

 DATE SIGNATURE 

 _____________________ 

 PRINT NAME 

Muhammad, et al. v. CCSF, et al., Case No. C06-4480

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 56 Filed 06/25/07 Page 8 of 8