Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

STIPULATION TO MODIFY ORDER

4878-9842-4192, v. 1

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

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500

Sacramento, California 95815

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, and DARRYL RODERICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA DOE, a fictitious name; CLARA 

DOE, a fictitious name, and “I.D.” a 

fictitious name, by and through her next 

friend, MARIA DOE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE; DARRYL RODERICK; 

JAGDEEP SINGH; individually and as

administrator of the estate of Sushma Giri; 

V & N ASSOCIATES, LLC and ALIDA 

ESTRADA,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD

STIPULATION TO MODIFY 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Hon. Carolyn K. Delaney

Plaintiffs and Defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, and 

Darryl Roderick and Defendants Estate of Sushma Giri and Jageep Singh, jointly submit the 

following stipulation to modify the Protective Order (ECF No. 38) entered in this action. 

Disclosure and discovery activity in this action has revealed such may involve production of 

confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and 

from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted, including but not 

limited to: third party dates of birth, contact information, and confidential investigative materials related 

to third party criminal reports that may involve domestic violence and other sensitive crimes or would 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 59 Filed 09/25/23 Page 1 of 4
2

STIPULATION TO MODIFY ORDER

4878-9842-4192, v. 1

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

other implicate the official information privilege including ongoing crimes. See Kelly v. City of San 

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (1987) (indicating that the official information privilege should protect, e.g., 

names of confidential informants in on-going criminal investigations).

Accordingly, the parties seek to modify the Protective Order (ECF No. 38) entered into this 

case as follows:

Addendum to Protective Order

1. Designating Party: a Party may designate information or items that it produces in disclosures or 

in responses to discovery as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”

2. “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items is defined 

as: extremely sensitive “Confidential Documents,” disclosure of which to another Party would create a 

substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means, including but not 

limited to third party dates of birth, names contact information, and confidential investigative materials 

related to third party criminal reports that may involve domestic violence and other sensitive crimes or 

would other implicate the official information privilege due to ongoing criminal investigations or 

prosecutions therefrom. See Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (1987) (indicating that the 

official information privilege should protect, e.g., names of confidential informants in on-going criminal 

investigations).

3. The definition of “Confidential Documents” at Paragraph A2 shall include those designed as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”

4. Disclosure of “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 

Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by a Designating Party, a Receiving 

Party may disclose any information or item designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” only to:

(a) the Receiving Party’s Counsel of Record in this action, as well as employees of said Counsel of 

Record to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation and who have 

signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

///

///

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 59 Filed 09/25/23 Page 2 of 4
3

STIPULATION TO MODIFY ORDER

4878-9842-4192, v. 1

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

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 25, 2023 PORTER SCOTT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By /s/John R. Whitefleet

John R. Whitefleet

Attorneys for Defendants County of Sacramento, 

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, and Darryl 

Roderick

Dated: September 25, 2023 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE

FOUNDATION

/s/Ezra Kautz (auth’d on 9/20/23) 

Ezra Kautz

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: September 25, 2023 BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA LLP

/s/Julie Young (auth’d on 9/18/23) 

Attorneys for Defendants Jagdeep Singh the 

Estate of Sushma Giri

ORDER

Pursuant to the above stipulation, and good cause appearing it is so ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2023

8

doe21cv1438.stip.mod

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 59 Filed 09/25/23 Page 3 of 4
4

STIPULATION TO MODIFY ORDER

4878-9842-4192, v. 1

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

Doe et al v County of Sacramento et al,

USDC EDCA Case No. 21-cv-01438

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND

I, ___________________________ [print or type full name], of ____________________ [print or 

type full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and understand the 

Stipulated Protective Order and Addendum thereto that was issued by the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of California, ECF No. 38 and ECF No. ______ in the case in the above 

matter. 

I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I 

understand and acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in 

the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any information or 

item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order and Addendum thereto to any person or entity 

except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order. 

I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order, even if such 

enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action. 

I hereby appoint __________________________ [print or type full name] of 

_______________________________________ [print or type full address and telephone number] as 

my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any proceedings related to 

enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order. 

Date: ____________________________ 

City and State where sworn and signed: ____________________________ 

Printed name: ____________________________ 

Signature: _______________________________

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 59 Filed 09/25/23 Page 4 of 4