Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03427/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03427-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494

cfessenden@porterscott.com

Cruz Rocha, SBN 279293

crocha@porterscott.com

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500

Sacramento, California 95815

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

Attorney for Defendants

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, JIM 

COOPER, and JAMES EDDINS

Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103

Mark E. Merin 

Paul H. Masuhara 

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 

1010 F Street, Suite 300

Sacramento, CA 95814

mark@markmerin.com

paul@markmerin.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., DAVID BAREFIELD II, 

AARON BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and LOIS BAREFIELD,

UNITED STATES OF CALIFORNIA

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR.,

DAVID BAREFIELD II, AARON 

BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and 

LOIS BAREFIELD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, KATHERINE 

LESTER, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, JIM COOPER, JAMES 

EDDINS, and DOE 1 to 20, 

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 

ORDER RE: VIDEO 

Complaint Filed: 12/10/2024

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 9
2

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

Defendants.

___________________________________/

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATION

Defendants believe that the disclosure and discovery activity concerning the materials described 

in this stipulated protective order is likely to involve production of information for which protection from 

public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. 

Plaintiffs have not been permitted to view the materials described in this stipulated protective order. The 

parties acknowledge that this protective order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 

discovery activity, and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited information or items that 

are entitled to such protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties further 

acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does not entitle any party to file information designated 

as protected or confidential under seal, where Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be 

followed and reflects the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to 

file material under seal.

B. DEFINITIONS

The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order:

1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or 

later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action consolidated 

at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment.

2. “Documents” or “Confidential Documents” shall mean the documents that Defendants 

designate as “Confidential” and described in section C.

3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this 

stipulated protective order. Information designated “Confidential” shall be information that is determined 

in good faith by the attorneys representing the designating party to be subject to protection pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidential documents, material, and/or information shall be used 

solely for purposes of litigation. Confidential information shall not be used by the non-designating party 

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 9
2

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all parties to this action or as authorized 

by further order of the Court.

4. “Defendants” shall mean COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, JIM COOPER, and JAMES EDDINS.

5. “Plaintiffs” shall mean ESTATE OF DAVID BAREFIELD SR., DAVID BAREFIELD II, 

AARON BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and LOIS BAREFIELD.

6. “Parties” shall mean Plaintiffs and Defendants, identified above.

C. INFORMATION COVERED

Covered Information:

Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for protection under 

this stipulated protective order is limited to the following:

1. Redacted Body Worn Camera video from inside the jail depicting the matter which is the 

subject of this litigation. 

Particularized Need for Protection:

Pursuant to Local Rule141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, particularized 

need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. Defendants represent 

to the Court and Plaintiffs that the materials designated to be covered by this stipulated protective order 

are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), 

and does not include information designated on a blanket or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re Roman 

Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011).

Showing of Need for a Protective Order:

Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order is for 

the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and expenditure of 

resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the parties and the Court from conducting 

the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain protection, in favor of a procedure whereby 

presumptive protection is afforded based on Defendants’ good faith representations of the need for 

protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986) As a result, 

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 9
3

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

production may be made with this stipulated protective order in place and, if necessary, it will permit 

discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for protection. 

D. TERMS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Confidential Documents subject to protection may be designated as “Confidential” and produced 

subject to this stipulated protective order:

1. The Confidential documents shall be used solely in connection with the above-captioned 

civil case, and in the preparation and trial of the case. The parties do not waive any objections to the 

admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial.

2. The parties will designate the Confidential documents as confidential by affixing a mark 

labelling them “Confidential” or otherwise specifically designating in writing visual media that is 

protected. 

3. The Confidential documents may only be disclosed to the following persons:

a. Plaintiffs and Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara of the Law Office of Mark E. 

Merin, and any partners and associates in that office;

b. Defendants and Carl L. Fessenden and Cruz Rocha of Porter Scott, and any partners 

and associates in that office;

c. Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel or support staff regularly employed by 

counsel referred to in subparts (a) and (b) immediately above, including stenographic deposition reporters 

or videographers retained in connection with this action;

d. Court personnel, including stenographic reporters or videographers engaged in 

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

e. Any expert, consultant, or investigator retained in connection with this action; 

however, such persons must be advised of and abide by this protective order;

f. The finder of facts at the time of trial, subject to the court’s rulings on in limine

motions and objections of counsel; and

g. Witnesses during their depositions in this action. If confidential documents are used 

in the deposition, the documents must be identified as “Confidential” and the portion of the deposition in 

which the documents are described should also be considered confidential.

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 9
4

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

4. Information covered by this stipulated protective order does not automatically entitle the 

parties to file such information or documents with the Court under seal. Any request to seal documents is 

governed by Local Rule 141. If the Confidential documents are filed with any motion or other pleading, a 

party may seek permission from the Court to file the Confidential Documents under seal according to 

Local Rule 141. If permission is granted, the Confidential documents will be filed and served in 

accordance with Local Rule 141.

5. The designation of the Confidential documents as “Confidential” and the subsequent 

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

Confidential documents or information contained therein.

6. Any party or non-party may challenge a Confidential designation at any time. A party or 

non-party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a 

challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed. The challenging party shall initiate the 

dispute resolution process by providing written notice of each designation it is challenging and describing 

the basis for each challenge. The parties shall attempt to resolve each challenge in good faith and must 

begin the process by conferring directly (in person or voice-to-voice dialogue; other forms of 

communication are not sufficient) within seven (7) days of the date of service of notice. In conferring, the 

challenging party must explain the basis for its belief that the confidentiality designation was not proper 

and must give the designating 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 has engaged in this 

meet and confer process first or establishes that the designating party is unwilling to participate in the 

meet and confer process in a timely manner. If the parties cannot resolve a challenge without Court 

intervention, the designating party shall file and serve a motion for protective order/to retain 

confidentiality pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 251 within twenty-one (21) 

days of the initial notice of challenge or within seven (7) days of the parties agreeing that the meet and 

confer process will not resolve their dispute, whichever is earlier. Failure by the designating party to make 

such a motion within twenty-one (21) days (or seven (7) days, if applicable) shall automatically waive the 

“Confidential” designation for each challenged designation. In addition, the challenging party may file a 

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 9
5

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any time if there is good cause for doing so. The burden 

of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the designating party, consistent with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Unless the designating party has waived the confidentiality designation by 

failing to file a motion for protective order/to retain confidentiality as described above, all parties shall 

continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled under the 

designating party’s designation until the Court rules on the challenge.

7. Should the Confidential documents or any information contained therein be disclosed, 

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

protective order, the disclosing person(s) shall promptly (a) inform counsel for the Defendants 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 stipulated protective order.

8. The Confidential documents shall not lose its confidential status because it was 

inadvertently or unintentionally disclosed to a person not authorized to receive it under this stipulated 

protective order.

9. The protections conferred by this stipulated protective order cover the information defined 

above, as well as any information copied from the materials. However, the protections conferred by this 

stipulated protective order do not cover: (A) any information that is in the public domain at the time of 

disclosure or which subsequently becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure, including 

becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (B) any information known prior to the 

disclosure or obtained after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under 

no obligation of confidentiality.

10. Within 90 days after this litigation concludes by settlement, final judgment, or final order, 

including all appeals, all documents designated as containing Confidential Information, including copies 

as defined above, must be returned to the party who previously produced the document unless: (1) the 

document has been offered into evidence or filed without restriction as to disclosure; (2) the document is 

destroyed to the extent practicable in lieu of return; or (3) as to documents bearing the notations, 

summations, or other mental impressions of the receiving party, that party elects to destroy the documents 

and certifies to the producing party that it has done so. All confidential documents or information that is 

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 6 of 9
6

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

subject to this protective order shall be returned or destroyed upon the conclusion of this litigation, either 

through the settlement of the case, the dismissal of the case or the entry of a Final Order (i.e., an Order 

not subject to further appeal). Nothing in this section requires a party, its counsel, or consultants to delete 

discovery material which may reside on one or more backup tapes or other media maintained for purposes 

of disaster recovery, business continuity, or other reasons, except that the parties agree that all such 

Confidential Information will continue to be confidential under this Order.

11. After the conclusion of this litigation, the Confidential documents will remain confidential. 

“Conclusion” of this litigation means a termination of the case following a trial, settlement, or dismissal 

of the action with prejudice for any other reason.

12. This stipulated protective order shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue to 

be binding on all parties and affected persons until 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. Upon termination of this litigation, the parties agree the stipulated 

protective order shall continue in force as a private agreement between the parties.

13. The parties may request additional records to be subject to this stipulated protective order. 

If a party believes a document to be produced should be subject to this stipulated protective order, the 

parties must meet and confer. If there is agreement, the parties shall submit an amendment to this stipulated 

protective order to identify the additional documents. If the parties cannot agree, the party seeking 

protection shall file a motion for protective order pursuant to the terms of Local Rule 251.

14. During the pendency of this lawsuit, the Court may (a) make such amendments, 

modifications, and/or additions to this stipulated protective order as deemed appropriate upon good cause 

shown; and (b) adjudicate any dispute arising under it.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

///

///

///

///

Dated: December 20, 2024 PORTER SCOTT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 7 of 9
7

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

By /s/Carl L. Fessenden__________

Carl L. Fessenden

Cruz Rocha

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF 

SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

JIM COOPER, and JAMES EDDINS

Dated: December 20, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

By /s/Mark E. Merin (Authorized on 12/19/24)

Mark E. Merin 

Paul H. Masuhara

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF 

DAVID BAREFIELD SR.,

DAVID BAREFIELD II, AARON 

BAREFIELD, FINAS BAREFIELD, and 

LOIS BAREFIELD,

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 8 of 9
8

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: VIDEO

4909-9203-7127, 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

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 that was issued by the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California, on [date] in the case of Estate of David Barefield v. City of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 2:24-

cv-03427-TLN-JDP. 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 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, 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 2:24-cv-03427-TLN-JDP Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 9 of 9