From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manning v. Bunell

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 8, 2015
2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015)

Opinion


SHERMAN MANNING, (J98796) PETER ANDRIST, Plaintiffs, v. M. BUNELL, L. JOHNSON, F. SCHROEDER, SGT. MAY, R. WENKER, CO HUMPHRIES, M. JIMENEZ, A. RALLS, R. COUCH, C. COMPTON, CO GOLDSMITH, R. O'BRIEN, AND SGT. STRATTON, Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 8, 2015

          [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

          ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The Court having granted in part Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Doc. #132) and having ordered Defendants to disclose any workplace discipline and/or criminal convictions (Doc. #192), hereby orders disclosure of such information subject to the forder:

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, as follows:

         The following Protective Order shall govern the use and disclosure of Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories regarding workplace discipline and/or criminal convictions (collectively, "Confidential Information") produced in accordance with the Court's Order granting, in part, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, with the following provisions.

         1. Under no circumstances shall Confidential Information be used in any proceeding other than the instant case or be disseminated, in any form, except by explicit court order.

         2. Under no circumstances shall Confidential Information be used in any of Plaintiff s books, website, twitter account, or any other publication.

         3. Under no circumstances shall Confidential Information either orally or by written form, be inputted into any computer program or database or listed manually in any manual, notebook or other listing as it pertains to law enforcement personnel. This does not apply to any computer program or case file maintained specifically as to this criminal action.

         4. Disclosure of Confidential Information shall be limited to the personnel and/or classification of persons listed below:

(a) Counsel for any party to this action and plaintiff, who is pro se ;

Although Plaintiff is in contact with several attorneys, Plaintiff may not provide any information to any attorney unless that attorney has entered his or her appearance in this case and is currently counsel of record.

(b) Staff personnel employed by counsel for any party;

(c) The court and its personnel, in connection with this litigation;

(d) Experts or consultants retained to work on this case by counsel for any party to this case; and

(e) Investigators retained by counsel for any party to this case, as indicated above.

         5. Under no circumstances shall Confidential Information be disclosed and/or used by former co-Plaintiff Peter Andrist or any other state prisoner.

         6. Counsel for any party to this action shall advise those individuals to whom disclosure of Confidential Information is to be made of the contents of this Protective Order, and such counsel shall obtain the consent of such individual that he or she will be bound by this Protective Order. In the event such individual does not consent to be bound by this Protective Order, no disclosure of Confidential Information will be made to such individual. In this case, counsel includes plaintiff, who is pro se.

         7. Any counsel, expert, consultant, or investigator retained by counsel for any party to this case shall not refer to Confidential Information in any other court proceeding subject to further order of this Court.

         8. Except for documentation filed under seal by the court, all originals and copies of Confidential Information shall be returned to counsel for the defendants within 10 days after final termination of this case, whether such termination is by settlement, judgment, dismissal, appeal or otherwise.

         9. This Protective Order, and the obligations of all persons thereunder—including those relating to the disclosure and use of Confidential Information—shall survive the final termination of this case whether such termination is by settlement, judgment, dismissal, appeal or otherwise, until further order of the Court.

         10. Nothing in this Protective Order is intended to prevent officials or employees of the CDCR, individual CDCR peace officers, or other authorized individuals from having access to Confidential Information to which they would have access in the normal course of their duties.

         11. Breach of this protective order may result in dismissal of this case and/or monetary fines.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Manning v. Bunell

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 8, 2015
2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015)
Case details for

Manning v. Bunell

Case Details

Full title:SHERMAN MANNING, (J98796) PETER ANDRIST, Plaintiffs, v. M. BUNELL, L…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 8, 2015

Citations

2:12-cv-2440 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015)