Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01782/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Benzinger
Defendant
City and County of San Francisco
Defendant
Heather Fong
Defendant
M.L.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 n:\lit\li2005\050536\00333256.doc 

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

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 Chief Trial Attorney 

DAVID B. NEWDORF, State Bar #172960 

Deputy City Attorney 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3800 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

HEATHER FONG, STEPHEN JONAS and 

MATT MASON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

M.L., by and through his Guardian Ad 

Litem, MONICA AUTRY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; 

HEATHER FONG, in her capacity as 

Chief of Police for the CITY AND 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

STEPHEN BENZINGER, individually, 

and in his capacity as a police officer for 

the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO; and, San Francisco Police 

Officers DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

 Defendants, 

Case No. C 04-1782 PJH 

Case No. C04-3982 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: 

CONFIDENTIAL PEACE OFFICER 

INFORMATION

LEE COLLINS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; 

HEATHER FONG, in her capacity as 

Chief of Police for the CITY AND 

USDC NO.: C04-3982 PJH/ C 04-1782 PJH

Case 4:04-cv-01782-PJH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 6
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 n:\lit\li2005\050536\00333256.doc 

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

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; 

STEPHEN JONAS, individually and in 

his capacity as a police officer for the 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO; MATT MASON, 

individually and in his capacity as a police 

officer for the CITY AND COUNTY OF 

SAN FRANCISCO; and San Francisco 

Police Officers DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

The parties to these actions (Lee Collins v. City and County of San Francisco and M.L. v. City 

and Countyof San Francisco), by and through counsel, STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 

1. Information and records contained in the personnel files of San Francisco Police 

Officers (or former officers) shall be treated as confidential in this litigation. Those records are 

hereinafter referred to as “CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION.” 

These records include but are not limited to police officers’ home addresses and complaints and 

discipline records contained in the files of the San Francisco Police Department and/or the Office of 

Citizens’ Complaints. 

2. The CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION shall not 

be exhibited, displayed or otherwise disclosed by Plaintiffs’ Counsel (or authorized persons described 

in paragraph 4) to other persons except as specifically provided herein. 

3. Plaintiff’s Counsel may exhibit and/or disclose CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION only to the following categories of person and no others unless 

authorized by order of the Court: 

 a. Plaintiff’s Counsel; 

 b. A witness who was the complainant against a San Francisco Police Officer 

involved in this case may view his or her complaint and documents concerning his or her complaint, 

but may not view complaints concerning other complainants. The limitation of this paragraph 

includes Plaintiff Orlando Bacon, who may view records concerning his own complaint(s) (if such 

document(s) exist(s)) only in the presence of Plaintiff’s Counsel and may not receive originals or 

USDC NO.: C04-3982 PJH/ C 04-1782 PJH

Case 4:04-cv-01782-PJH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 6
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 3 n:\lit\li2005\050536\00333256.doc 

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

copies of any CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION. This 

paragraph also does not prevent Plaintiff Orlando Bacon from receiving copies of his own written 

complaint(s) submitted to the Office of Citizens Complaints (if such document(s) exist(s)). This 

paragraph does not prevent counsel from discussing the contents of CONFIDENTIAL POLICE 

OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION with Plaintiff Orlando Bacon for purposes connected with 

the litigation. 

 c. Experts, investigators or consultants retained by Plaintiff’s Counsel to assist in 

the evaluation, preparation, or trial of this case. Before any expert, investigator, or consultant is 

permitted to review the CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION, such 

individual must agree to comply with the terms of this Protective Order by executing the NON 

DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT attached as Exhibit A to this Order. Plaintiffs’ Counsel may make 

one copy of CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION for each such 

individual. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall retain the original of all NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS 

for five years after the conclusion of this litigation, whether through final judgment, appeal, or by 

whatever means resolved. Experts, investigators, and consultants shall not have any power to 

authorize further disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL 

INFORMATION to any other person. 

4. Nothing contained in this order shall prohibit any person, including any persons 

described in 3(a-c) above, from using or referring to CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION in motion papers or pleadings filed with the Court, provided that 

adequate provision is made to protect the confidentiality of the CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER 

PERSONNEL INFORMATION and provided that any portion of such motion papers or legal 

pleadings that reference said CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION 

is filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s rules and procedures (see Civil Local Rule 79-5). 

5. At the conclusion of this litigation, through final judgment, appeal, or by whatever 

means resolved, all persons subject to this Order (including experts, investigators or consultants) shall 

return all copies of the CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION to 

counsel for the City. 

USDC NO.: C04-3982 PJH/ C 04-1782 PJH

Case 4:04-cv-01782-PJH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 3 of 6
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 4 n:\lit\li2005\050536\00333256.doc 

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

6. Unless disclosure is ordered by the Court, attorneys for Defendants shall have the sole 

authority to determine that documents subject to the Protective Order are no longer considered 

CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION and will advise counsel for 

plaintiff in writing if this determination is made. Plaintiff may challenge defendants’ designation of a 

particular document as CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION by 

filing a noticed motion or a motion for administrative relief under Civ. L.R. 7-11 or by any other 

procedure directed by the Court. The parties agree that the prevailing party in a motion to remove the 

confidential designation shall waive its entitlement to monetary sanctions, including attorney’s fees. 

7. In the event of any unauthorized disclosure as set forth herein, the City and County of 

San Francisco reserves the right to seek appropriate sanction of the Court. 

AGREED AND STIPULATED: 

Dated: November 1, 2005 DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER 

Chief Trial Attorney 

SEAN F. CONNOLLY 

DAVID B. NEWDORF 

By: /s/ 

DAVID B. NEWDORF 

Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: November 1, 2005 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN L. BURRIS 

By: /s/ 

BENJAMIN NISENBAUM 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

The undersigned counsel certifies that he has obtained approval by e-mail to e-file this 

Stipulation on behalf of counsel for all parties. 

 /s/ 

DAVID B. NEWDORF 

USDC NO.: C04-3982 PJH/ C 04-1782 PJH

Case 4:04-cv-01782-PJH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 4 of 6
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 5 n:\lit\li2005\050536\00333256.doc 

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

ORDER 

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _________________ __________________________ 

 Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 

 United States District Judge 

USDC NO.: C04-3982 PJH/ C 04-1782 PJH

11/3/05

Case 4:04-cv-01782-PJH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 5 of 6
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 6 n:\lit\li2005\050536\00333256.doc 

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 

NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT 

I, the undersigned, have read and understood the Stipulated Protective Order Re: Confidential 

Peace Officer Information in Lee Collins v. City and County of San Francisco, U.S. District Court 

No. C 04-3982 PJH, and M.L. v. City and Countyof San Francisco, U.S. District Court No. C 04-1782 

PJH. I agree to comply with the confidentiality requirements as stated in the Order and not to use or 

disclose CONFIDENTIAL POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL INFORMATION except as permitted 

by the Order. I understand that if I violate this Order I may be subject to sanction by the Court. 

Date: __________________________ 

Signed: ________________________ 

Print Name: _____________________ 

(Plaintiff’s Counsel shall retain the originals of these form as required by this Order.) 

USDC NO.: C04-3982 PJH/ C 04-1782 PJH

Case 4:04-cv-01782-PJH Document 12 Filed 11/03/05 Page 6 of 6