Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00032/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00032-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arturo Aguilar
Plaintiff
Mark Melkonian
Defendant
Melkonian Enterprises, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

SAGASER, JONES & HAHESY

2445 Capitol Street, 2nd Floor

Post Office Box 1632

Fresno, California 93717-1632

Telephone: (559) 233-4800

William C. Hahesy #105743

Rose M. Huelskamp #229173

Attorneys for: Defendant Melkonian Enterprises, Inc., and Mark Melkonian

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTURO AGUILAR, individually and on

behalf of all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MELKONIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., and

MARK MELKONIAN

Defendants.

Case No. CV-F-05-00032 OWW LJO

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER AND ORDER

The parties, Plaintiff Arturo Aguilar and Defendants Melkonian

Enterprises, Inc. and Mark Melkonian (collectively the “Stipulating Parties”), hereby

stipulate, by and through their respective attorneys of record, to the entry of the following

Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures

or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited

information or items that are entitled under the applicable legal principles to treatment as

confidential. The parties further acknowledge that this Order creates no entitlement to

file confidential information under seal. Civil Local Rule 39-141 sets forth the

procedures that must be followed when a party seeks permission from the Court to file

Case 1:05-cv-00032-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 6
documents under seal. 

1. Any document, or portion thereof, and any other form of evidence

or discovery contemplated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which, in the good

faith opinion of the party providing such discovery (the “Producing Party”), contains any

confidential information, including third-party privacy documents, or other proprietary

information (“Confidential Information”), may be designated by the Producing Party as

confidential.

2. The term “Litigation” used herein shall mean only the litigation

pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California,

Fresno Division, Aguilar v. Melkonian Enterprises, et al., Case No. CV-F-05-00032

OWW LJO, and any litigation to enforce any judgment thereon or appeals thereof.

3. Confidential Information may be designated as follows:

a. Documents or copies of the same provided by a Producing

Party to the other parties containing Confidential Information shall be designated by

marking the page or the pages on which the Confidential Information appears with the

legend: “CONFIDENTIAL.”

b. In lieu of marking each page, the Producing Party may, at

its option, Bates-stamp the documents and identify in writing groups of pages between

which all the documents or information contain Confidential Information.

c. In lieu of marking the original of a document that contains

Confidential Information prior to inspection, counsel for the Producing Party may orally

designate such documents being produced for inspection as Confidential Information

thereby making them subject to this Stipulation and Order. However, copies of such

documents must be marked “CONFIDENTIAL.”

d. Confidential Information disclosed at a deposition may be

designated by a Producing Party as Confidential Information by: (1) clearly indicating at

the deposition and on the record, as set forth below, the specific testimony containing the

Confidential Information that is to be made subject to the provisions of this Stipulation

Case 1:05-cv-00032-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 08/01/05 Page 2 of 6
and Order; and (2) clearly indicating in writing to the other parties within 40 days of the

completion of the deposition.

e. Confidential Information contained in responses to

interrogatories, other discovery requests or responses, affidavits, briefs, memoranda, or

other papers filed with the Court, may be designated as Confidential Information by the

parties to the litigation by prominently marking each page containing Confidential

Information with the legend “CONFIDENTIAL.”

f. The attorney of record shall be responsible for ensuring

that any of their work-product which contains Confidential Information of the Producing

Party entitled to protection under this Order, including copies of production documents,

notes, memoranda, and documents prepared for filing with the Court comply with this

Protective Order.

4. Each party that designates information or items for protection

under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that

qualifies under the appropriate standards. A designating party must take care to

designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written

communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or

communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within

the ambit of this Order.

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. If

it comes to a party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection

do not qualify for protection, that party should promptly notify all other parties that it is

withdrawing the mistaken designation.

5. Confidential Information shall only be disclosed and made

available to the following designated persons:

a. The attorneys of record for each party to this action and

their/its agents and firm staff, including associates, paralegals, secretaries, and support

staff and the like;

Case 1:05-cv-00032-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 08/01/05 Page 3 of 6
b. Contract or temporary personnel retained to perform work

relative to this Litigation;

c. Any person designated by order of the Court after notice to

all parties;

d. Independent experts or consultants retained by a party or

counsel of record in connection with this Litigation (“Retained Experts or Consultants”),

provided such Retained Experts or Consultants agree to be bound by this Stipulation, to

use such confidential information solely for purposes of this Litigation and not to

disclose any such Confidential Information to any other person, firm, or concern;

e. The Court and its personnel;

f. Court stenographers, outside copy services, interpreters and

translators whose functions require them to have access to Confidential Information;

g. The parties to this action;

h. Witnesses in the action to whom disclosure is reasonably

necessary; and

i. The author of the document or the original source of the

information. 

6. All Confidential Information produced or exchanged in the course

of this Litigation shall be used solely for the purpose of this Litigation. No Confidential

Information shall be provided to any person or any entity other than as specifically set

forth herein. In the event any request, subpoena, or other effort is made to obtain

Confidential Information by other than those persons designated herein, no such

Confidential Information shall be provided absent consent of the Stipulating Parties.

Alternatively, upon an order of this Court and after due notice and opportunity for all

parties to be heard, the Stipulating Parties may release any such Confidential Information

specified in the order.

7. Nothing in this Order shall prevent a party from using any

Confidential Information at depositions, mediation, or during a hearing in this Litigation.

Case 1:05-cv-00032-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 08/01/05 Page 4 of 6
However, the party using such information or material must request that the portion of

the proceeding or the use of the material shall be made in camera and that the transcript

of the portion of the proceeding be maintained under seal with access limited to persons

entitled to access under this Order. During the course of any hearing or the trial of this

Litigation, if any party believes that the information sought contains Confidential

Information, he or she may so declare.

8. A party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of a

Confidential Information designation at the time made, and a failure to do so shall not

preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this Litigation

disagrees at any point in these proceedings with the designation by the producing party of

any confirmation of Confidential Information, the party shall first try to dispose of such

dispute in a genuine good faith effort and on an informal basis. If the dispute cannot be

resolved, the objecting party may seek appropriate relief from the Court.

The burden of persuasion in any challenge proceeding regarding any

confidentiality designation shall be on the designating party. Until the Court rules on the

challenge, all parties shall continue to afford the material in question the level of

protection to which it is entitled under the Producing Party’s designation. 

9. Nothing herein shall prevent disclosure beyond the terms of this

Order if the Producing Party of Confidential Information consents in writing to such

disclosure.

10. Inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of Confidential Information

shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of the parties’ claim of confidentiality.

Such inadvertent or unintentional disclosure may be rectified by notifying in writing the

counsel of record for all parties to whom the information was disclosed that the

information is confidential and subject to this Stipulation and Order. Such notification

shall constitute a designation of the information as Confidential Information. 

11. This Protective Order shall not prevent any of the parties from

applying to the Court for further or additional protective orders, or from agreeing among

Case 1:05-cv-00032-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 08/01/05 Page 5 of 6
themselves to modification of this Protective Order as it relates to the Stipulating Parties’

documents.

DATED: July 28, 2005 SAGASER, JONES & HAHESY

By: /s/ William C. Hahesy

William C. Hahesy, 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Melkonian Enterprises, Inc., and Mark

Melkonian

DATED: July 29, 2005 LEWIS, FEINBERG, RENAKER & JACKSON

By: /s/ Vincent Cheng

Vincent Cheng, 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Arturo Aguilar

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00032-OWW -LJO Document 18 Filed 08/01/05 Page 6 of 6