Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04432/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04432-5/pdf.json

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

---

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 

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.

JEFFREY LEWIS - 066587 

jlewis@lewisfeinberg.com 

BILL LANN LEE - 108452 

blee@lewisfeinberg.com 

ANDREW LAH - 234580 

alah@lewisfeinberg.com 

SACHA CRITTENDEN STEINBERGER - 253823 

ssteinberger@lewisfeinberg.com 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED 

EMPLOYEES 

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 

RAYMOND F. LYNCH - 119065 

rlynch@hansonbridgett.com 

SARAH D. MOTT - 148597 

smott@hansonbridgett.com 

CAROLINE BURNETT - 259389 

cburnett@hansonbridgett.com 

425 Market Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 777-3200 

Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THE COUNTY OF SONOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF 

RETIRED EMPLOYEES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SONOMA COUNTY, 

Defendant. 

No. CV 09-4432 CW 

STIPULATION REGARDING ORDERLY 

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND 

INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Action Filed: September 22, 2009 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 10
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-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

WHEREAS on April 6, 2010, Judge Claudia Wilken authorized limited discovery for 

Plaintiff Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees (“Plaintiff” or “SCARE”) to review 

public records ("Limited Discovery") prior to filing an amended complaint; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is to be filed on July 6, 2010; 

WHEREAS Defendant Sonoma County (the “County” or “Defendant”) represents that it 

has made a diligent search for and has undertaken a substantial and labor-intensive series of index 

searches and undertaken a manual search for and recovery of all resolutions and ordinances from 

1945 to the present that reference retiree or employee health benefits, as well as any extant 

agenda items, reports, memoranda or other accompanying documentation presented to the County 

Board of Supervisors related to those resolutions and ordinances and produced those as 

referenced below. 

WHEREAS Defendant produced more than 11,000 pages of digitalized documents in 

connection with its Initial Disclosures in February and March 2010, including all resolutions and 

ordinances concerning employee and retiree health benefits going back to 1945, and produced 

another 4,000 pages of e-documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Set of Document Requests 

(“Document Requests”) on April 5 and April 16, 2010; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff has requested, inter alia, an opportunity to review all Board of 

Supervisor meeting minutes (“Minutes”) from 1945 to the present before filing its amended 

complaint; 

WHEREAS Defendant has agreed to make available for inspection these Minutes, which 

are potentially responsive to the Court's order for Limited Discovery; and 

WHEREAS, the Defendant represents that the production of the quantity of Minutes 

requested by Plaintiff during the Limited Discovery necessitates that the County amend for these 

purposes its usual and customary practice and procedures for granting public access to official 

County records and has the potential to disrupt and interfere with the County’s transaction of 

business and its ability to respond to requests from other constituents. 

WHEREAS, prior to Defendant’s April 5, 2010, response and production to the Document 

Requests and the Court authorizing the Limited Discovery on April 6, 2010, Plaintiff and 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 10
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 

-3-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

Defendant had agreed to meet and confer further with the goal of entering into a Stipulated 

Protective Order to safeguard the protection of any inadvertently disclosed privileged materials, 

and that would include a rolling document production schedule in connection with Defendant’s 

response to the Document Requests, and now contemplate they will meet and confer further on 

any future production schedule and other discovery issues as appropriate in the event additional 

discovery proceeds and will undertake to supplement this Order pursuant to such agreement. 

THEREFORE, Plaintiff Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees and 

Defendant Sonoma County (individually a “Party” or collectively “Parties”) hereby stipulate to 

the following: 

1. The Parties agree to cooperate in creating a procedure and schedule for the 

production of Minutes and any other public documents during the Limited Discovery. 

2. The Parties recognize that production of documents does not result in the express 

or implied waiver of any privilege or protection for the materials produced in the course of this 

litigation in the above-entitled action, including without limitation information protected from 

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, deliberative process/official privileges, the attorney 

work product doctrine or the constitutional right to privacy. 

3. To safeguard the protection of any inadvertently disclosed materials subject to the 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, deliberative process/official privilege or privacy 

privilege in the production of documents in this litigation, the Parties agree that the production 

shall be governed by the procedures and terms set forth in this Stipulation Regarding Orderly 

Review of Documents and Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Material (“Stipulation”). Further, 

the Parties agree that nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any of 

the objections raised in Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Document Requests. This 

Stipulation shall also govern resolution of any disputes that arise between or among the Parties 

over the designation of any documents or other materials as privileged. 

4. DEFINITIONS. 

 4.1 Party: Any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, 

employees and Counsel (as defined below). 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 3 of 10
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 

-4-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

 4.2 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 

the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 

testimony, transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced or generated in disclosures or 

responses to discovery in this matter. 

 4.3 Receiving Party: a Party or non-party, including but not limited to 

Professional Vendors, that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 

 4.4 Producing Party: a Party or non-party that produces Disclosure or 

Discovery Material in this action. 

 4.5 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is privileged 

under the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the deliberative process/official 

privilege or a privacy privilege. 

 4.6 Outside Counsel: attorneys, as well as their support staff, who are not 

employees of a Party but who are retained to represent or advise a Party in this action. 

 4.7 County Counsel: attorneys, as well as their support staff, who are 

employees of a Party. 

 4.8 Counsel : Outside Counsel and County Counsel. 

4.9 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 

services (e.g., photocopying; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or demonstrations; 

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

subcontractors retained in this action. 

5. SCOPE. This Stipulation and Order shall govern all Disclosure or Discovery 

Material, and the Parties to this action and their counsel of record shall be bound by the 

provisions hereof. Additionally, this Stipulation and Order may be made applicable to production 

by a non-party, if designated by the non-party and agreed to by the Parties signatory hereto. The 

protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also 

any information copied or extracted therefrom (such as copies, excerpts, summaries, or 

compilations thereof) by a Receiving Party. This Stipulation and Order prohibits the Receiving 

Party from revealing any information set forth in the preceding sentence in any way, except as 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 4 of 10
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 

-5-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

provided for in Paragraphs 9 and 11. 

6. DURATION. Even after the termination of this litigation, the obligations imposed 

by this Stipulation and Order shall remain in effect until the Parties agree otherwise in writing or 

a Court order otherwise directs. 

7. LIMITED DISCOVERY - PRODUCTION SCHEDULE. 

 7.1 After the signing of this Stipulation, upon reasonable notice to the County 

by Plaintiff, the County shall make available for inspection to Plaintiff the microfilm and 

microfiche records of Minutes, which are kept in the ordinary course of business in the office of 

the Clerk of the County's Board of Supervisors. 

 7.2 Plaintiff shall provide to the County a schedule of the hours and days on 

which an agent or representative will be reviewing the Minutes and, to the extent possible in 

advance, who will be reviewing them (“Schedule”). 

 7.3 The Parties agree that the Schedule will be provided to the County at least 

three (3) business days in advance of the days on which Plaintiff wishes to review the Minutes. 

 7.4 Plaintiff agrees to be diligent and sustained in its review of documents and 

to be cooperative with the County during the production. The County agrees to be cooperative 

with Plaintiff during the production. 

8. LIMITED DISCOVERY - PRODUCTION. 

 8.1. The Parties agree that the Minutes will be made available for inspection by 

the Plaintiff between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. During those hours, Plaintiff 

may check out selected microfilm and microfiche from the Board of Supervisor’s Clerk’s office 

and transport them to be viewed on the available machines in the County Recorder’s offices. The 

Parties further agree that: 

 8.2 During the inspection, Plaintiff may select from those documents the 

documents it wishes to have produced and will print one copy of each of those documents on the 

viewing machines. 

 8.3 Before the end of the day on which the selected Minutes are checked out, 

each microfilm and microfiche will be checked back in at the Board of Supervisor’s Clerk’s 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 5 of 10
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 

-6-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

office. 

 8.4 When the microfiche or microfilm is returned for the day, Plaintiff also will 

provide any paper copies made that day to the Board of Supervisor’s Clerk’s office. Plaintiff 

promises and agrees that it will not make any additional copies of the Minutes or retain any 

copies of the Minutes other than as set forth in this Stipulation. 

 8.5 For each copy, the County will assign a production number to the 

document and produce it to Plaintiff within five (5) business days of selection. Plaintiff will be 

charged a per page amount of $0.10 for each page in accordance with the Board of Supervisors’ 

policy. If Plaintiff wishes to receive a digital production, however, the Parties will meet and 

confer to determine reasonable intervals for the production of such digital copies and the cost of 

which will be paid by Plaintiff. 

9. INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF DISCOVERY MATERIAL. The 

inadvertent disclosure of Protected Material which a Party or non-party later claims should not 

have been produced or made available for inspection because of a privilege belonging to that 

entity, including without limitation the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the 

deliberative process/official privilege or the privacy privilege, will not be deemed to waive any 

privileges. A Party or non-party may request the return of any Protected Material. A request for 

the return of any Protected Material shall identify the Protected Material from production. If a 

Party or other entity producing documents in this litigation requests the return, pursuant to this 

Paragraph of any Protected Material, the Receiving Party must immediately return the material in 

question to the Producing Party, destroy all information copied or extracted therefrom by the 

Receiving Party and refrain from revealing any such information. The Party or parties returning 

such Protected Material shall not assert as a ground for entering an order compelling production 

of the Protected Material the fact or circumstances of the inadvertent production. 

 If a Receiving Party identifies information during its inspection, which it believes may be 

Protected Material inadvertently disclosed, it must immediately notify and/or return the material, 

along with any information covered by this Order to the Producing Party. Should the Producing 

Party assert a claim of privilege of any kind over the identified material, it may request the return 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 6 of 10
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-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

of the Protected Material and any information copied or extracted therefrom by the Receiving 

Party and that the Receiving Party refrain from revealing any information it obtained from the 

Protected Material. 

10. CHALLENGING PRIVILEGE CLAIMS

 10.1 Claim of Privilege. If Protected Material is produced in discovery that is 

subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the deliberative process/ 

official privilege or the privacy privilege, the Producing Party making the claim may notify any 

Party that received the Protected Material of its claim and the basis for return, sequester, or 

destruction of the specified information until the claim is resolved. If the Receiving Party 

disclosed the Protected Material before being notified, it must take reasonable steps to retrieve it 

as specified in Paragraph 11. Once returned, the Producing Party must preserve the Protected 

Material until the claim is resolved. 

 10.2 Meet and Confer. A Party that elects to initiate a challenge to a Producing 

Party’s privilege claim must do so in good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly 

(in voice to voice dialogue; other forms of communication are not sufficient unless either Party 

fails to respond to a voice communication in a reasonable manner) with counsel for the Producing 

Party. In conferring, the challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief that the privileged 

claim was not proper and must give the Producing Party an opportunity to review the designated 

material, to reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation is offered, to explain 

the basis for the chosen designation. A challenging Party may proceed to the next stage of the 

challenge process only if it made reasonable efforts to engage in this meet and confer process 

first. 

 10.3 Judicial Intervention. A Party that elects to press a challenge to a privilege 

claim after considering the justification offered by the Producing Party may promptly file and 

serve a motion under Civil Local Rule 7 that identifies the challenged material and sets forth in 

detail the basis for the challenge for the Court to undertake an in camera review. Each such 

motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied 

with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding paragraph and that sets forth 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 7 of 10
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-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

with specificity the justification for the privilege claim that was given by the Producing Party in 

the meet and confer dialogue. 

The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Producing 

Party. Until the Court rules on the challenge, the Producing Party must preserve the information. 

11. 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 Order, the Receiving Party must 

immediately (a) notify in writing the Producing Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) inform 

the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, 

(c) request that the persons or persons immediately return, sequester or destroy the Protected 

Materials, including all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other form of 

reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material to the Producing Party and use its best 

efforts to ensure that the person or persons comply with this request; and (d) whether the 

Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the person or persons must submit a written 

certification to the Producing Party within five (5) days that identifies (by category, where 

appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and that affirms that the 

Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or other forms of 

reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. 

12. MISCELLANEOUS

 9.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Stipulation abridges the right of 

any person to seek its modification by the Court in the future. 

 9.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this Order, 

no Party waives any objections made in discovery responses or defenses stated in its pleadings, 

nor does any Party waive any right it otherwise would have to object to disclosing or producing 

any information or item on any ground not addressed in this Stipulation. Similarly, no Party 

waives any right to object on any ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by this 

Stipulation and Order. 

/ / / / 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 8 of 10
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 

-9-

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: May 5, 2010 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & 

JACKSON, P.C. 

By:/s/BILL LANN LEE 

BILL LANN LEE 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF 

RETIRED EMPLOYEES 

DATED: May 5, 2010 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

By:/s/RAYMOND F. LYNCH 

RAYMOND F. LYNCH 

SARAH D. MOTT 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SONOMA COUNTY 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 10, 2010 

HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 9 of 10
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 -

STIP RE ORDERLY REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF 

PRIVILEGED MATERIAL AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER (CASENO.CV09-4432CW) 2341585.1

SIGNATURES UNDER GENERAL ORDER NO. 45

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 of the United States District Court, Northern District of 

California, I, Raymond F. Lynch—the ECF User whose User ID and Password are used in the 

filing of this document—hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been 

obtained from each of the other signatories to this document. 

 /s/ 

 Raymond F. Lynch 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 32 Filed 05/10/10 Page 10 of 10