Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05323/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05323-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORIS DUCRE; CHARLES ALLEN; K.A. by

and through his guardian ad litem,

CHARLES ALLEN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation;

CHARLES P. BENNETT in his capacity as Chief

of Police for CITY OF RICHMOND; ERIC

SMITH, individually, and in his capacity as a

Richmond police officer; MICHAEL ROOD,

individually, and in his capacity as a Richmond

police officer; MITCH PEIXOTO, individually,

and in his capacity as a Richmond police officer;

LOUIE TIRONA, individually, and in his capacity

as a Richmond police officer; and, DOES 6–100,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-05323 WHA

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED

PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT 

TO STATED CONDITIONS

The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to

the following conditions:

1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any information

designated “confidential” warrants protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Designations of material as “confidential” must be narrowly tailored to

include only material for which there is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may

lead to an order de-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

Case 3:04-cv-05323-WHA Document 30 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the Court

must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil Local Rule

79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly-tailored portions of

materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include all other portions of your

materials in the public file and 

clearly indicate therein where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing

requires an individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no

longer allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

3. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

unredacted — so that the chambers staff does not have to re-assemble the whole brief or

declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which portions are

confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be handled like all other

chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and will typically be recycled,

not shredded.

4. Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial will not

be treated in any special manner absent a further order.

5. This order does not preclude any party from moving to de-designate

information or documents that have been designated as confidential. The party seeking

to designate material as confidential has the burden of establishing that the material is

entitled to protection.

6. Notwithstanding the stipulation of the parties to the contrary, the Court

will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the proposed and stipulated protective

order for only 45 days after final termination of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05323-WHA Document 30 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2