Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00233-6/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 re: Admin Hrgs.

James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853

Erica M. Camarena, Esq. Bar No. 227981

THE LAW FIRM OF

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF,

ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY DYER, CHIEF OF THE FRESNO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; SGT. MICHAEL MANFREDI; OFFICER MARCUS

K. TAFOYA 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUPE E. MARTINEZ, In Behalf of Herself

and all Similarly Situated. RALPH C.

RENDON, in Behalf of Himself and all

Similarly Situated.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY DYER, Chief

of the Fresno Police Department; SGT.

MICHAEL MANFREDI; OFFICER

MARCUS K. TAFOYA, and Does 1-20 in

their official and capacities, inclusive, 

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00233 OWW TAG

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE:

DOCUMENTS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE

HEARING(S)

Complaint Filed: March 1, 2006

Trial Date: April 8, 2008

WHEREAS, the CITY believes, in good faith, that the following documents requested

by the Plaintiff, Ralph Rendon (Requests for Production of Documents, Set 6, Nos. 49 and

50), contain information that is: (a) confidential, sensitive, or potentially invasive of an

individual’s privacy interests; (b) not generally known; and (c) not normally revealed to the

public or third parties or, if disclosed to third parties, would require such third parties to

maintain the information in confidence: Documents from Administrative Hearing(s).

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by, among and between the parties hereto through

their counsel of record, that the documents described above may be designated as

Case 1:06-cv-00233-OWW -SKO Document 75 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 7
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 re: Admin Hrgs. 2

“Confidential” by the CITY OF FRESNO and produced subject to the following Protective Order:

1. The disclosed documents shall be used solely in connection with the civil cases

of Claudia Rendon, et al., v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01851-OWW-SMS (E.D.

Cal.) and Lupe E. Martinez, et al v. City of Fresno, Case No. 1:06 CV 00233 OWW LJO,

(E.D. Cal.) and in the preparation and trial of the cases, or any related proceeding. The CITY

is not waiving any objections to the admissibility of the documents or portions of the

documents in future proceedings, including the trials of the matters. Any documents

submitted in related litigation that were under seal, remain under seal in this action.

2. A party producing the documents and materials described above may designate 

those materials by affixing a mark labeling them as “Confidential.” If any “Confidential”

materials cannot be labeled with the aforementioned marking, those materials shall be placed

in a sealed envelope or other container that is in turn marked “Confidential” in a manner

agreed upon by the disclosing and requesting parties.

3. Documents or materials designated under this Protective Order as

“Confidential” may only be disclosed to the following persons: 

a) Peter N. Kapetan, counsel for Plaintiffs CLAUDIA RENDON, GEORGE

RENDON, PRISCILLA RENDON, LAWRENCE RENDON, RICARDO RENDON, JOHN

NUNEZ, JR., ALFRED HERNANDEZ, and VIVIAN CENTENO; and for plaintiff RALPH

RENDON in the related case Lupe E. Martinez, et al v. City of Fresno, Case No. 1:06 CV

00233 OWW LJO, (E.D. Cal.);

b) Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel

referred to in subpart (a) directly above, including stenographic deposition reporters or

videographers retained in connection with this action;

c) Charles M. Barrett, counsel for LUPE E. MARTINEZ, from the related case,

Lupe E. Martinez, et al v. City of Fresno, Case No. 1:06 CV 00233 OWW LJO, (E.D. Cal.);

d) Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel

referred to in subpart (c) directly above, including stenographic deposition reporters or

videographers retained in connection with this action;

Case 1:06-cv-00233-OWW -SKO Document 75 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 7
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 re: Admin Hrgs. 3

e) Court personnel including stenographic reporters or videographers engaged in

proceedings as are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial of the civil action; 

f) Any expert, consultant or investigator retained in connection with this action; 

g) The finder of fact at the time of trial, subject to the court’s rulings on in limine

motions and objections of counsel. 

4. Prior to the disclosure of any Confidential information to any person identified

in paragraph 3, each such recipient of Confidential information shall be provided with a copy

of this Stipulated Protective Order, which he or she shall read. Upon reading this Stipulated

Protective Order, such person shall acknowledge in writing that he or she has read this

Stipulated Protective Order and shall abide by its terms. Such person must also consent to be

subject to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California,

with respect to any proceeding related to enforcement of this Protective Order, including

without limitation, any proceeding for contempt. Provisions of this Protective Order, insofar

as they restrict disclosure and use of the material, shall be in effect until further order of this

Court. Plaintiff shall be responsible for internally tracking the identities of those individuals

to whom copies of documents marked Confidential are given. The CITY OF FRESNO may

not request the identities of said individuals, however, until the final termination of the

litigation or if it is able to demonstrate a good faith basis that Plaintiffs, or an agent thereof,

has breached the Stipulated Protective Order. 

5. All documents or materials designated as “Confidential” pursuant to this

Protective Order, and all papers or documents containing information or materials designated

as “Confidential,” that are filed with the Court for any purpose shall be filed and served under

seal, with the following statement affixed to the document or other information:

“This envelope is sealed pursuant to order of the Court and contains Confidential

Information filed in this case by [name of party] and is not to be opened or the contents

thereof to be displayed or revealed except by order of the Court.”

6. The designation of information as “Confidential,” and the subsequent

production thereof, is without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose the admissibility of

the designated information.

Case 1:06-cv-00233-OWW -SKO Document 75 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 7
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 re: Admin Hrgs. 4

7. A party may apply to the Court for an order that information or materials

labeled “Confidential” are not, in fact, confidential. Prior to so applying, the party seeking to

reclassify “Confidential” information shall meet and confer with the producing party. Until

the matter is resolved by the parties or the Court, the information in question shall continue to

be treated according to its designation under the terms of this Order. The producing party

shall have the burden of establishing the propriety of the “Confidential” designation. A party

shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time

made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. 

8. Copies of Confidential Documents

The following procedures shall be utilized by the parties in production of documents

and materials designated “Confidential”:

a) Plaintiffs’ counsel shall receive one copy of the Confidential

documents.

b) Plaintiffs’ counsel shall not copy, duplicate, furnish, disclose, or

otherwise divulge any information contained in the confidential documents to any source

without further order of the Court or authorization from counsel for the City of Fresno.

c) If Plaintiffs, in good faith, require additional copies of documents

marked “Confidential” in preparation of their case, they shall make a further request to

counsel for the CITY OF FRESNO. Upon agreement with counsel for the CITY OF

FRESNO, copies will be produced in a timely manner to Plaintiffs, pursuant to the procedures

of this Stipulated Protective Order. Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld by counsel

for the CITY.

d) Plaintiffs shall be billed for the copying of the Confidential documents

at the City’s cost.

e) Defendants shall produce documents and material marked

“Confidential” to plaintiff with a red marking on each page labeled: 

“CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

PETER N. KAPETAN, ESQ.”and 

Case 1:06-cv-00233-OWW -SKO Document 75 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 7
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 re: Admin Hrgs. 5

“CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER. 

CHARLES M. BARRETT, ESQ.”

f) If any document or information designated as “confidential” pursuant to

this Protective Order is used or disclosed during the course of a deposition, that portion of the

deposition record reflecting such material shall be stamped with the appropriate designation

and access shall be limited pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order. The Court reporter

for the deposition shall mark the deposition transcript cover page and all appropriate pages or

exhibits, and each copy thereof, in accordance with paragraph 5 of this Protective Order. Only

individuals who are authorized by this Protective Order to see or receive such material may be

present during the discussion or disclosure of such material.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3, confidential information

produced pursuant to this Protective Order may not be delivered, exhibited or otherwise

disclosed to any reporter, writer or employee of any trade publication, newspaper, magazine or

other media organization.

10. Should any information designated confidential be disclosed, through

inadvertence or otherwise, to any person not authorized to receive it under this Protective

Order, the disclosing person(s) shall promptly (a) inform the CITY OF FRESNO of the

recipient(s) and the circumstances of the unauthorized disclosure to the relevant producing

person(s) and (b) use best efforts to bind the recipient(s) to the terms of this Protective Order. 

No information shall lose its confidential status because it was disclosed to a person not

authorized to receive it under this Protective Order.

11. After the conclusion of this litigation, all documents and materials, in whatever

form stored or reproduced, containing “Confidential” information will remain confidential,

and if filed with the Court, shall remain under seal. All documents and materials produced to

plaintiff pursuant to this stipulated protective order shall be returned to counsel for the CITY

OF FRESNO in a manner in which counsel will be able to reasonably verify that all

documents were returned. All parties also ensure that all persons to whom “Confidential”

documents or materials were disclosed shall be returned to counsel for defendants. The

conclusion of this litigation means a termination of the case following trial or settlement.

Case 1:06-cv-00233-OWW -SKO Document 75 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 7
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 re: Admin Hrgs. 6

12. No later than 30 days of settlement or of receiving notice of the entry of an

order, judgment, or decree terminating this action, all persons having received the confidential

documents shall return said documents to counsel for the CITY OF FRESNO. 

13. If any party appeals a jury verdict or order terminating the case, Plaintiffs’

counsel shall retain possession of all confidential documents pending final outcome of the

appeal after which they shall be returned to counsel for the City of Fresno.

14. This Stipulated Protective Order shall remain in full force and effect and shall

continue to be binding on all parties and affected persons after this litigation terminates,

subject to any subsequent modifications of this Stipulated Protective Order for good cause

shown by this Court or any Court having jurisdiction over an appeal of this action. After this

action terminates, any party may seek to modify or dissolve this Stipulated Protective Order by

Court order for good cause shown or by the parties’ stipulation.

15. The Court shall retain jurisdiction, even after this lawsuit terminates, (a) to

make such amendments, modifications and additions to this Protective Order as it may from

time to time deem appropriate upon good cause shown and (b) to adjudicate any dispute

respecting improper use or disclosure of confidential material.

DATED: October 11, 2007

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

By: _/s/ James D. Weakley____

James D. Weakley

Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: October 11, 2007 KAPETAN BROTHERS

By: _/s/ Peter N. Kapetan_______

Peter N. Kapetan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, CLAUDIA RENDON,

GEORGE RENDON, PRISCILLA RENDON,

LAWRENCE RENDON, RICARDO RENDON,

JOHN NUNEZ, JR., ALFRED HERNANDEZ, and

VIVIAN CENTENO; and Plaintiff RALPH RENDON

///

Case 1:06-cv-00233-OWW -SKO Document 75 Filed 10/15/07 Page 6 of 7
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 re: Admin Hrgs. 7

DATED: October 11, 2007 DREYER, BABISH, BUCCOLA & CALLAHAM

By: /s/ Charles M. Barrett 

Charles M. Barrett

Attorneys for Plaintiff LUPE E. MARTINEZ

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00233-OWW -SKO Document 75 Filed 10/15/07 Page 7 of 7