From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. City of Fresno

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 3, 2011
Case No. 1:09-CV-00887 LJO SMS, (Consolidated Case No. 1:08-CV-01062) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:09-CV-00887 LJO SMS, (Consolidated Case No. 1:08-CV-01062).

February 3, 2011

BETTS RUBIN, A Professional Corporation, Attorneys at Law, Fresno, California, James B. Betts (State Bar #110222), Joseph D. Rubin (State Bar #149920), Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY BISHOP, MATTHEW LOPEZ, BARBARA MILLER, NICK YOVINO.

Emerson, Corey, Sorensen, Church Libke, Rayma Church, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs La-Kibba Wilson and Teri McCada.


STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: DOCUMENTS; ORDER


This litigation arises out of Plaintiffs' claims of discrimination in their employment with the City. Documents which may be utilized in this case include employee complaints and investigations that are protected from disclosure by statutory and common law rights of privacy.

The parties herein, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to be bound by the following Protective Order:

1. This Stipulation shall govern the production of "confidential records", including, but not limited to, employee complaints and investigations related to Plaintiffs which may be germane to the above-referenced action.

2. Any DOCUMENT produced in discovery, may be marked "confidential" by the producing party ("DOCUMENTS").

3. The DOCUMENTS may be given, shown, disclosed, made available or communicated only to the following:

a. Counsel for the parties who have executed this Stipulation, and the investigative, paralegal, administrative, clerical and secretarial personnel assisting such attorneys for whom access to such material is necessary to perform their duties with respect to this case; provided that execution of this Stipulation by any member of the law firm representing a party shall constitute a representation that all persons in or employed by or paid by that firm or that firm's client(s) shall adhere to this Stipulation.
b. Any party who has executed a copy of the acknowledgment form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the signed executed form shall be delivered to Betts Rubin).
c. Any expert who has executed a copy of the acknowledgment.
d. Personnel of the Court and court reporters retained by the parties or the Court to record and transcribe testimony in this case.
e. The DOCUMENTS designated for protection pursuant to this Stipulation may, if admissible, be introduced into evidence or otherwise disclosed in Court proceedings pursuant to protections agreed upon by the Court.
f. The DOCUMENTS shall not be used by any party to whom it is disclosed for any purpose other than for purposes of the pending litigation. The DOCUMENTS designated hereunder shall be kept in secure facilities.
g. No person can utilize or disclose to any person, in public or in private, the DOCUMENTS, or information set forth therein, except as set forth in this Stipulation.
h. The Stipulation is not intended to preclude any party from seeking further relief, modification of the Stipulation, or protective orders from the Court, as may be deemed appropriate under applicable law, upon appropriate notice to all parties.
i. This Stipulation shall be binding on all persons and all parties who have notice hereof and all persons who have voluntarily signed the Affidavit of Confidentiality, as attached hereto. A disclosure of designated material in violation of the conditions of this Stipulation is subject to whatever sanctions the Court deems appropriate and/or any remedy provided under state and/or federal law.

4. To the extent that any party disputes that a DOCUMENT should be marked as "confidential", the parties shall meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve any potential dispute. If the parties meet and confer efforts prove unavailing, a party may move the Court for an order that the subject DOCUMENT should not be treated as confidential and subject to the terms of this Protective Order.

ORDER

Upon reading the foregoing Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wilson v. City of Fresno

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 3, 2011
Case No. 1:09-CV-00887 LJO SMS, (Consolidated Case No. 1:08-CV-01062) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011)
Case details for

Wilson v. City of Fresno

Case Details

Full title:LA-KEBBIA WILSON, TERI McCADA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FRESNO, JERRY BISHOP…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:09-CV-00887 LJO SMS, (Consolidated Case No. 1:08-CV-01062) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011)