Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01164/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CITY OF LINCOLN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1164 KJM AC 

ORDER 

 The parties have filed a Stipulation and proposed order regarding privileged or protected 

material inadvertently produced, authentication of documents, and electronically stored 

information. ECF No. 13. The matter was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 

Rule”) 302(c)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the Stipulation will not be approved in its 

current form. 

I. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION 

 The Stipulation governs the disposition of materials claimed to be privileged or protected 

that were inadvertently produced in discovery, and over which the producing party subsequently 

asserts a privilege or protection. The Stipulation correctly cites Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 

26(b)(5)(B) and Fed. R. Evid. 502 as governing inadvertent disclosures of such materials. 

 However, while the Stipulation uses the general language of Rule 26(b)(5)(B), calling for 

the receiving party to “promptly present the information to the Court under seal for a 

Case 2:16-cv-01164-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

determination of the privilege or protection claim ...,” ECF No. 13 at 4 ¶ I(E), it fails to clarify 

that such a presentation must be in the form of a motion, governed by Local Rule 251. The court 

will not approve a stipulation that seemingly authorizes a party to simply file documents under 

seal, at any time, without adversary briefing, and request a court determination. Any such 

determination will be made only upon a noticed motion filed under Local Rule 251. In any such 

motion, the court authorizes the parties to file the disputed documents under seal, and to file 

redacted briefing. 

 In addition, the Stipulation states that “The Court” has made various findings. See ECF 

No. 13 ¶¶ I(A)-(C). The court has not made the referred-to findings. Such language should not 

appear in a renewed stipulation. 

II. DISCOVERY MOTIONS 

 In the section entitled “Miscellaneous provisions,” the Stipulation indicates that discovery 

disputes regarding “electronic discovery or evidence” will be governed by the court’s “Standing 

Order Document 3-1 section 4.A.” ECF No. 13 at 12 ¶ IV(A). In fact, the cited section of 

Judge Mueller’s Standing Order refers to motions governed by Local Rule 230. However, all 

discovery motions are governed by Section 1(A) of the Standing Order, and Local Rule 251. Any 

renewed stipulation must correct or remove the incorrect language. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation and 

proposed order (ECF No. 13), is NOT APPROVED. 

DATED: November 16, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01164-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2