Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01619/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01619-5/pdf.json

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

---

!
"#$%

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 

1 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

2:22-CV-01619-DJC-SCR 

PATRICK MORIARTY, State Bar No. 213185 

pmoriarty@cmtrlaw.com

JOHN ROBINSON, State Bar No. 297065 

jrobinson@cmtrlaw.com

EDWARD VIEIRA-DUCEY, STATE BAR NO. 251405 

evieira-ducey@cmtrlaw.com

CASTILLO, MORIARTY, ROBINSON, LLP 

75 Southgate Avenue 

Daly City, CA 94015 

Telephone: (415) 213-4098 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF FAIRFIELD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PLAINTIFF ERIC NELSON, as Successorin-interest to his father, Decedent, JEFF 

NELSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, and DOES 1-50; 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:22-CV-01619-DJC-SCR

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta 

Trial: None Set 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c), the parties, Plaintiff Eric 

Nelson (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant City of Fairfield, Ofc. Adams, Ofc. Arroyo, Ofc. Barker, Lt. 

Chapman, and Ofc. Machado (collectively, “Defendants”), submit the following stipulated 

protective order (“SPO”) for the Court’s approval. If approved by the Court, the information 

identified herein shall be subject to presumptive protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), subject to 

challenge provisions described herein. 

I. INFORMATION COVERED 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) authorizes that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect 

a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense...” 

Covered Information: 

Case 2:22-cv-01619-DJC-SCR Document 45 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 5
  	
  
	
  	

 
 

 
 	
  !
"#$%

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 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

2:22-CV-01619-DJC-SCR 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(1), a description of the information eligible for 

protection under this SPO is limited to the following: 

(A) Fairfield Police Department IA FN 2020-15, including citizen complaint, investigation, 

investigation documents, findings, and/or recommendations; 

(B) Incident Related Blue Teams Reports [Bates Nos. 52-65];and 

(C) Any requested personnel files or other IAs that may be requested/produced from any 

city employee. 

Particularized Need for Protection: 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(2), Defendants submit that there exists a particularized 

need for protection as to the information covered by this SPO. In good faith, Defendants assure 

Plaintiff and the Court that the materials designated to be covered by this SPO are limited solely to 

specific material that they believe would qualify for protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and 

does not include information which has been subject to protection on a blanket or indiscriminate 

basis. Plaintiff has not been permitted to view the documents covered by this SPO, prior to its 

requested entry by the Court. 

Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 141.1(c)(3), the need for protection pursuant to this SPO is for 

the convenience of the parties and the Court. The parties wish to avoid litigation and expenditure 

of resources concerning a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order, where Plaintiff has not yet been 

provided with the opportunity to view the documents covered by this SPO. The entry of this SPO 

would prevent the parties and Court from being required to conduct a document-by-document 

analysis pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), in favor of a procedure whereby presumptive protection 

is afforded, production may be made with that protection in place, and, if necessary, discrete and 

narrowed challenges may be made. 

II. SCOPE 

The protections conferred by this SPO cover the information defined above as well as any 

information copied from the materials. However, the protections conferred by this SPO do not 

cover: (A) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure or which 

Case 2:22-cv-01619-DJC-SCR Document 45 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 5
  	
  
	
  	

 
 

 
 	
  !
"#$%

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 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

2:22-CV-01619-DJC-SCR 

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. 

III. ACCESS AND USE 

Information covered by this SPO may be disclosed only to the parties and the parties’ 

counsel and their personnel, experts, or professional vendors (e.g., professional jury, trial 

consultants, mock jurors, etc.). Information covered by this SPO must be stored and maintained at 

a location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons to whom 

access and use is permitted. 

Nothing in this SPO shall limit or prevent a party from introducing or questioning a party 

concerning the information covered by this SPO during the course of discovery or taking of 

testimony, including depositions. If necessary, Defendants may seek to designate specific 

portions of testimony subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protection. 

IV. CHALLENGES 

Any party or non-party to this action may challenge the appropriateness of the SPO at any 

time, including after the action has been disposed or terminated. The party or non-party 

challenging the SPO does not waive its right to challenge by electing not to mount a challenge 

promptly after the entry of this SPO or after the documents covered by this SPO are produced. 

This Court retains jurisdiction of this SPO. Further, if it is discovered that the materials which 

Defendants assured Plaintiff were subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protection are not, in fact, 

subject to such protection, Defendants may be subject to expenses or sanctions pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(c). 

Challenge Procedure: Any party challenging this SPO shall initiate the dispute resolution 

process by providing written notice of each document or piece of information 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 within 14 days of the date of service of 

notice. In conferring, the challenging party must: (1) explain the basis for its belief that the 

Case 2:22-cv-01619-DJC-SCR Document 45 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 5
  	
  
	
  	

 
 

 
 	
  !
"#$%

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 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

2:22-CV-01619-DJC-SCR 

confidentiality designation was not proper; and (2) give Defendants an opportunity to review the 

challenged material(s), a period of which shall not exceed seven calendar days, and respond. In 

response, Defendant shall either: (A) rescind the protection conferred by this SPO by filing a 

notice with the Court, if Defendants believe that the challenge is meritorious or do not wish to 

object to the challenge; or (B) explain the basis for the appropriateness of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 

protection. If the parties cannot resolve a challenge without Court intervention, the Defendants 

shall comply with the terms of E.D. Cal. L.R. 251 associated with seeking Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 

protection. 

At all times, the burden of demonstrating Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protection shall remain on 

Defendants. If Defendants are unwilling to participate in the challenge procedure outlined above 

in a timely manner, nothing precludes the challenging party from affirmatively moving to 

challenge the entry of this SPO (e.g., the filing a motion to compel, motion to intervene, etc.). 

V. SEALING ORDERS 

Information covered by this order does not automatically entitle parties to file such 

information or documents with the Court under seal. Any request to seal documents in this district 

is governed by E.D. Cal. L.R. 141, which provides that documents may only be sealed by a written 

order of the Court and after a specific request to seal has been made and the applicable showing 

demonstrated. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

Dated: November 5, 2024 LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY GOFF 

By: /s/ Stanley Goff 

STANLEY GOFF 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ERIC NELSON 

/// 

/// 

 

Case 2:22-cv-01619-DJC-SCR Document 45 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 5
  	
  
	
  	

 
 

 
 	
  !
"#$%

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 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

2:22-CV-01619-DJC-SCR 

Dated: November 5, 2024 CASTILLO MORIARTY ROBINSON 

By: /s/ Patrick Moriarty 

PATRICK MORIARTY 

JOHN ROBINSON 

EDWARD VIEIRA-DUCEY 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF FAIRFIELD 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 11, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01619-DJC-SCR Document 45 Filed 11/12/24 Page 5 of 5