Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01670/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01670-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Braziel
Defendant
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Jaime Lara
Plaintiff
Daniel Monk
Defendant
Tristan Piano
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 

LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ

STEWART KATZ, State Bar #127425

GUY DANILOWITZ, State Bar #257733

555 University Avenue, Suite 270

Sacramento, California 95825

Telephone: (916) 444-5678

Attorneys for Plaintiff

JAIME LARA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

JAIME LARA, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; City of Sacramento 

Police Officer TRISTAN PIANO (Badge # 

885); City of Sacramento Police Sergeant 

DANIEL MONK (Badge # 3033); City of 

Sacramento Chief of Police RICHARD 

BRAZIEL (Badge # 5030); and DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive,

No: 2:09-CV-01670-FCD-GGH

PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING 

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

Case 2:09-cv-01670-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 08/13/10 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

All parties agree to produce documents pursuant to the 

following provisions:

1. In connection with discovery proceedings in this 

action, the parties hereby designate the following production 

of documents as AConfidential@ under the terms of this 

protective Order (hereinafter AOrder@). All documents 

produced pursuant to this protective order reflect 

information either from the personnel files of employees of 

the City of Sacramento Police Department (responsive to 

Plaintiff=s First Request For Production of Documents and 

Things, propounded to Defendant City of Sacramento; 

Plaintiff=s First Request for Production of Documents and 

Things, propounded to Defendant Daniel Monk; Plaintiff=s 

First Request for Production of Documents and Things, 

propounded to Defendant Tristan Piano; and Plaintiff=s Second 

Request for Production of Documents and Things to Defendant 

City of Sacramento) or documents that have not been made 

public and the disclosure of said documents could have the 

effect of causing harm to Defendants.

By designating these documents as AConfidential,@ under 

the terms of this Order, the party making the designation is 

certifying to the Court that there is a good faith basis both 

in law and in fact for the designation within the meaning of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g).

2. Confidential documents shall be so designated by 

water-marking copies of the document produced to a party with 

word ACONFIDENTIAL.@ All documents produced pursuant to this 

protective order will be bates stamped and water-marked 

ACONFIDENTIAL@ ADO NOT DUPLICATE.@

3. Material designated as confidential under this 

Order, the information contained therein, and any summaries, 

copies, abstracts, or other documents derived in whole or in 

part from material designated as confidential shall be used 

only for the purpose of this litigation, and for no other 

purpose.

4. Confidential Material produced pursuant to this 

Order may be disclosed or made available only to counsel for 

a party (including the paralegal, clerical, and secretarial 

staff employed by such counsel). This information may be 

provided to any expert retained for consultation and/or 

trial. In the event that this confidential information is 

given to an expert pert this order, counsel that retained the 

expert shall provide a copy of this order with the 

confidential information.

Case 2:09-cv-01670-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 08/13/10 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

5. The Confidential Material produced pursuant to this 

Order will be redacted with respect to law enforcement 

officers, officers of the court, and third party information 

including, but not limited to: (i) current home address; (ii) 

current home or personal telephone numbers; (iii) social 

security numbers; (iv) dates and places of birth. Each 

redaction must be identified by showing what information has 

been redacted (ie., Acurrent address,@ Acurrent home 

telephone,@ A social security number,@ etc.) This provision 

complies with Eastern District Local Rule 39-140.

6. In the event that any Confidential Material is used 

in any court proceeding in this action, it shall not lose its 

confidential status through such use, and the party using 

such shall take all reasonable steps to maintain its 

confidentiality during use. Nothing in this order creates 

the requirement that any documents covered by this protective 

order be filed under Aseal@ with the District Court. Nothing 

in this Order creates a requirement that any deposition be 

labeled AConfidential@ under seal. 

The substantive standards set forth by the Ninth 

Circuit for filing documents under seal are found in Pintos 

v. Pacific Creditors Ass=n., 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 

2009) and Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210 (9th Cir. 2002). Procedurally, the parties must comply 

with E. D. Local Rules 141 and 141.1 regarding the sealing of 

documents.

7. This Order is entered for the purpose of 

facilitating the exchange of documents and information 

between the parties to this action without involving the 

Court unnecessarily in the process. Nothing in this Order 

nor the production of any information or document under the 

terms of this Order nor any proceedings pursuant to this 

Order shall be deemed to have the effect of an admission or 

waiver by either party or of altering the confidentiality or 

nonconfidentiality of any such documents or information or 

altering any existing obligation of any party or the absence 

thereof. 

8. Nothing in this Protective Order shall in and of 

itself require disclosure of information that is protected by 

the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or any 

other privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Nor does this 

Protective Order result in any party giving up its right to 

argue that otherwise privileged documents must be produced 

due to waiver or for any other reason.

Case 2:09-cv-01670-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 08/13/10 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

9. In the event any party claims that it has 

inadvertently disclosed information subject to the attorneyclient privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other 

privilege, doctrine, or immunity, upon discovery of the 

inadvertent disclosure, the party shall promptly notify the 

opposing party thereof. Immediately upon receiving such 

notice, counsel for the party who received the allegedly 

inadvertently-disclosed privileged information shall 

sequester all identified information (including any and all 

copies) in its offices until the matter has been resolved 

either by agreement of the parties or by an order of this 

Court. With respect to the application of any claim of 

privilege or immunity for inadvertently produced materials, 

if the parties are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement 

as to the return and/or use of such Documents within ten (10) 

court days of such notice, the producing party may, within 

ten (10) court days thereafter, petition the Court on an 

expedited basis to resolve the matter. If the party alleging 

an inadvertent disclosure makes an adequate showing, 

reasonable under the circumstances, of both inadvertence and 

privilege, the Court shall order all such information 

returned to the party who inadvertently produced them.

10. If Protected Information produced in accordance 

with this Order is disclosed to any person other than in the 

manner authorized by this Order, the party responsible for 

the disclosure shall immediately bring all pertinent facts 

relating to such disclosure to the attention of all counsel 

of record and, without prejudice to other rights and remedies 

available to the producing party, make every effort to obtain 

the return of the disclosed Protected Information and prevent 

further disclosure of it by the person who was the recipient 

of such information.

11. This Order shall survive the final termination of 

this action, to the extent that the CONFIDENTIAL information 

is not or does not become known to the public, and the Court 

shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute concerning 

the use of the information disclosed hereunder. Upon

termination of this case, counsel for the parties shall 

assemble and return all documents, material, and deposition 

transcripts designed as confidential and all copies of the 

same to counsel for Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, TRISTAN

PIANO, DANIEL MONK, and RICK BRAZIEL, City of Sacramento, 

Office of the City Attorney, 915 I Street, 4th Floor, 

Sacramento, CA 95814, who produced the CONFIDENTIAL records.

Case 2:09-cv-01670-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 08/13/10 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

IT IS SO AGREED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 /s/ Stewart Katz

STEWART KATZ,

Attorney for Plaintiff

IT IS SO AGREED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 EILEEN M. TEICHERT

City Attorney

By: /s/ Sheri Chapman

SHERI M. CHAPMAN

Senior Deputy City 

Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 

TRISTAN PIANO, DANIEL MONK 

and RICK BRAZIEL

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:08/13/10 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01670-FCD-GGH Document 24 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 5