Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01143/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01143-3/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

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER No. 05-1143-SI 

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

 TYLER B. PON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

DAVID W. HAMILTON, State Bar No. 88587

S. MICHELE INAN, State Bar No. 119205

Deputy Attorneys General

1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor

P.O. Box 70550

Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Telephone: (510) 622-2151

Fax: (510) 622-2270

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVIA MAHACH-WATKINS, Individually and

as the Successor in Interest to the Estate of JOHN

JOSEPH WAYNE WATKINS, and PATRICIA

ANN WATKINS, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

LARRY DEPEE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and

DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. C-05-1143-SI

AMENDED STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties to this action, by and through their attorneys, hereby stipulate that:

(1) A party that receives a discovery request that would reach material that it believes is

covered by the official information privilege shall only designate such discovery

material “Confidential” after making a good faith determination that such protection is

warranted;

(2) All information that is designated “confidential” by a party is properly subject to

protection under FRCP 26(c) and Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 FRD 653 (9th Cir.

1987);

//

Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 37 Filed 02/27/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 38 Filed 03/02/06 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

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER No. 05-1143-SI 

2

(3) A party may challenge the opposing party’s designation of requested discovery

information as confidential by engaging in a meet-and-confer process (in writing or

orally), with opposing counsel, indicating which information the challenging party

believes does not warrant a confidentiality designation. The challenging party must

then explain the bases for the challenge and try to persuade the opposing party to

change its position. If that direct effort at persuasion fails and the party seeking

protection refuses to accept disclosure pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, the

challenging party should turn to the court by filing a focused motion to compel;

(4) The burden of justification is on the party seeking protection to show that such

protection is warranted; 

(5) When documents are designated as “confidential” they may be disclosed to the

plaintiff subject to the following conditions and this Court’s Protective Order:

(i) The documents and their contents may be used by the opposing party only in this

litigation and may not be used in separate proceedings or actions at this time or in

the future without first being obtained through proper discovery procedures or

court orders in those separate proceedings or trials;

(ii) The documents and their contents may not be disclosed, copied, distributed,

shown, described or read to any person or entity (including and not limited to

media representatives) by the opposing party or its representatives or agents other

than the parties to this litigation; the parties’ attorneys, paralegals, and office staff

in this litigation; and the party’s expert consultants in this litigation;

(iii) All documents produced subject to this Stipulated Protective Order and copies

thereof will be clearly marked “Confidential” by the party to indicate that they are

subject to this Protective Order;

(iv) All documents produced subject to this Stipulated Protective Order and copies

thereof must be destroyed or returned to the opposing party’s counsel upon

termination of this litigation;

(v) This Stipulated Protective Order does not in any way affect or prejudice the right

Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 37 Filed 02/27/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 38 Filed 03/02/06 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

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER No. 05-1143-SI 

3

of any party at time of trial or other proceedings in this matter to object to the use

or admissibility of said documents at the trial or other proceedings;

(6) Nothing contained in this order shall prohibit the parties’ attorneys from using or

referring to any information designated as confidential and disclosed pursuant to this

Protective Order in motion papers or pleadings filed with the Court, provided that

adequate provision is made to protect the confidentiality of the protected information;

and that any portion of such motion papers or legal pleadings that reference any

confidential information protected herein be lodged for filing under seal, pursuant to

the Court’s rules and procedures (see Civil Local Rule 79-5).

When filing confidential documents under seal, counsel shall place the documents

in a sealed envelope labeled to identify the title of the case, the case number, and the

title of the document with instructions that the document is filed pursuant to the

Stipulated Protective Order and that the envelope is not to be opened absent further

order of the court. For the purposes of any deadline, the date of lodging shall be

deemed the date of filing.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 37 Filed 02/27/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 38 Filed 03/02/06 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

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER No. 05-1143-SI 

i

(7) The parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court if any dispute arises over

their use of the information. The Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order

shall extend 6 months after the final termination of the action.

SO STIPULATED,

Dated: ___________________ /s/ Mary Helen Beatificato 

 MARY HELEN BEATIFICATO

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: ____________________ /s/ Tory M. Pankopf 

TORY M. PANKOPF

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: ____________________ /s/ Michele Inan 

S. MICHELE INAN

Attorney for Defendants

ORDER

Upon good cause shown, the above Stipulation of the parties is hereby approved and made

an Order of this Court.

DATED: ______________________ _________________________________

THE HON. SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

SF2004TT0246

Amended Protective Order.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 37 Filed 02/27/2006 Page 4 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-01143-SI Document 38 Filed 03/02/06 Page 4 of 4