Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00992-1/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

30

31

32

1

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION

Estate of Prince v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-00992-KJM-JDP

Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)

Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

1010 F Street, Suite 300

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-6911

Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com

paul@markmerin.com

 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ESTATE OF MICHAEL PRINCE, 

ELANO COSTELLO, DONNY COSTELLO,

M.C., I.C., D.C., J.C., SOPHIA COSTELLO,

and VALERIE PRINCE

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494

cfessenden@porterscott.com

Matthew R. Mendoza, SBN 344482

mmendoza@porterscott.com 

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 500

Sacramento, CA 95815

TEL: 916.929.1481

FAX: 916.927.3706

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, JIM COOPER, COLLEEN

JACOBSON, SWARN SHARMAN, NKEM

AYENI-AARONS, and LORI BORREGO

RIVERA HEWITT PAUL LLP

11341 Gold Express Drive, Suite 160

Gold River, CA 95670

Tel: 916-922-1200 Fax: 916-922-1303

Jonathan B. Paul, SBN 215884

jpaul@rhplawyers.com

Kristlenne C. Vicuna, SBN 329000

kvicuna@rhplawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendant

DOUGLAS CANLAS, M.D.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

ESTATE OF MICHAEL PRINCE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00992-KJM-JDP

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION;

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 2:24-cv-00992-DC-JDP Document 19 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 4
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

30

31

32

2

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION

Estate of Prince v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-00992-KJM-JDP

STIPULATION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Local Rule 141.1, and 45 C.F.R. §

164.512(e)(1)(v), the parties stipulate to the entry of a qualified protective order as follows:

1. The parties and their attorneys are authorized to receive, subpoena, and transmit 

“protected health information” pertaining to Michael Prince, as well as other parties and/or third-parties 

to this action, including which may be contained in the records of the County of Sacramento, Sacramento

County Sheriff’s Department, Adult Correctional Health/Correctional Health Services, and/or U.C. Davis 

Medical Center/Jail Psychiatric Services, to the extent and subject to the conditions outlined herein.

2. For the purposes of this qualified protective order, “protected health information” shall 

have the same scope and definition as set forth in 45 C.F.R. §§ 160.103, 164.501. Protected health 

information includes, but is not limited to, health information, including demographic information, 

relating to either: (a) the past, present, or future physical or mental condition of an individual; (b) the 

provision of care to an individual; or (c) the payment for care provided to an individual, which identifies 

the individual or which reasonably could be expected to identify the individual.

3. All “covered entities” (as defined by 45 C.F.R. § 160.103) are hereby authorized to 

disclose protected health information to attorneys representing any parties in the above-captioned matter, 

including Plaintiffs and Defendants.

4. The parties and their attorneys shall be permitted to use or disclose the protected health 

information for purposes of prosecuting or defending this action including any appeals of this case. This 

includes, but is not necessarily limited to, disclosure to their attorneys, experts, consultants, court 

personnel, court reporters, copy services, trial consultants, and other entities or persons involved in the 

litigation process. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit counsel in this matter from 

sharing information as permitted by law.

5. Prior to disclosing protected health information to persons involved in this litigation, 

counsel shall inform each such person that the protected health information may not be used or disclosed 

for any purpose other than this litigation. Counsel shall take all other reasonable steps to ensure that 

persons receiving the protected health information do not use or disclose such information for any 

purpose other than this litigation.

Case 2:24-cv-00992-DC-JDP Document 19 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 4
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

30

31

32

3

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION

Estate of Prince v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-00992-KJM-JDP

6. Within 45 days after the conclusion of the litigation including appeals, the parties, their 

attorneys, and any person or entity in possession of protected health information received from counsel 

pursuant to paragraph four of this Order, shall return the protected health information to the covered 

entity or destroy any and all copies of protected health information, except that counsel are not required 

to secure the return or destruction of protected health information submitted to the court.

7. This Order does not authorize either party to seal court filings or court proceedings. A 

party may seek permission from the Court to file protected health information under seal pursuant to 

Local Rule 141.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: August 20, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

/s/ Mark E. Merin

By: __________________________________

Mark E. Merin

Paul H. Masuhara

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ESTATE OF MICHAEL PRINCE, 

ELANO COSTELLO, DONNY COSTELLO,

M.C., I.C., D.C., J.C., SOPHIA COSTELLO,

and VALERIE PRINCE

Dated: August 22, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Matthew R. Mendoza

(as authorized on August 22, 2024)

By: __________________________________

Carl L. Fessenden

Matthew R. Mendoza

Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, JIM COOPER, COLLEEN

JACOBSON, SWARN SHARMAN, NKEM

AYENI-AARONS, and LORI BORREGO

Case 2:24-cv-00992-DC-JDP Document 19 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 4
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

30

31

32

4

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION

Estate of Prince v. County of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-00992-KJM-JDP

Dated: August 22, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

RIVERA HEWITT PAUL LLP

/s/ Kristlenne C. Vicuna

(as authorized on August 22, 2024)

By: __________________________________

Jonathan B. Paul

Kristlenne C. Vicuna

Attorneys for Defendant

DOUGLAS CANLAS, M.D.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties’ stipulation is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00992-DC-JDP Document 19 Filed 09/13/24 Page 4 of 4