Martinez v. County of Fresno ( 2019 )

1 Bruce J. Berger #133320 Michelle Pepper, #216444 2 STAMMER, McKNIGHT, BARNUM & BAILEY LLP 2540 W. Shaw Lane, Suite 110 3 Fresno, California 93711 Telephone: (559) 449-0571 4 Facsimile: (559) 432-2619 5 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO and ANITA HARPER 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERARDO DIONICIO MARTINEZ, ) CASE NO.: 1:18-CV-00793-LJO-BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ) REGARDING RECORDS 13 v. ) PERTAINING TO DEPENDENT ) ADULT CONSERVATEE 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, a Public Entity; ) ANITA HARPER, Deputy Public ) 15 Guardian; and DOES 1-15, inclusive, ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 ) 18 Subject to approval of this Court, defendants by and through counsel Bruce 19 Berger and Michelle Pepper, and plaintiff through his counsel of record Thornton 20 Davidson, hereby stipulate to the following protective order regarding information and 21 records obtained and created in the course of providing intake, assessment, and services 22 to dependent adult conservatee Robert Camarillo: 23 1. The parties agree Robert Camarillo is a developmentally delayed 24 dependent adult under a conservatorship and his acting Deputy Public Guardian is 25 Stacy Mauro, deputy public guardian for the Fresno County Public Guardian. 26 2. Pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 4514 all 27 information and records obtained in the course of providing intake, assessment, and 28 ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 1 services to persons with developmental disabilities shall be confidential and may only be 2 disclosed under specific circumstances. 3 3. A dispute has arisen as to whether it is and was in the best interest of the 4 conservatee to have visitation and/or contact with plaintiff Herardo Dionicio Martinez. 5 In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Herardo Dionicio Martinez claims discrimination and his 6 constitutional rights of free association are being violated by Robert Camarillo’s 7 conservator. 8 4. Notwithstanding the confidentiality of information and records obtained 9 in the course of providing intake, assessment, and services to a person with 10 developmental disabilities, namely Robert Camarillo, such information and records 11 shall be disclosed as it is relevant and responsive to the relationship between Herardo 12 Donicio Martinez and Robert Camarillo. Said “confidential material” may include 13 employee narratives and Periodic Evaluations of Conservatee. The parties agree that 14 information pertaining to Herardo Dionicio Martinez contained within employee 15 narratives and Periodic Evaluations of Conservatee pertaining to the conservatorship of 16 Robert Camarillo shall be produced if it is responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. 17 The parties further agree that information on the documents which does not pertain to 18 Plaintiff Martinez shall be redacted. 19 5. Any documents produced from Robert Camarillo’s conservatorship file 20 shall be considered and treated as confidential and may be disclosed or made available 21 only to the Court, to counsel for the parties in this matter (including the paralegal, 22 clerical, and secretarial staff employed by such counsel), and to the “qualified person” 23 designated below: 24 a) Fresno County Risk Management on behalf of the Fresno County 25 Board of Supervisors; 26 b) experts, consultants, psychologists, psychiatrists, or other health 27 care professionals retained by such counsel to assist in the prosecution, defense, or 28 settlement of this action; ________________________________________________________________________________ 2 1 c) court reporters employed in this action; 2 d) a witness at any deposition or other proceeding in this action; and 3 e) any other person as to whom the parties in writing agree. 4 6. Each “qualified person” to whom disclosure of the confidential material is 5 made shall prior to the time of disclosure be provided by the person furnishing such 6 materials a copy of this Order, and shall execute a nondisclosure agreement in the form 7 of Attachment A, to be maintained by counsel. 8 7. Depositions shall be taken only in the presence of qualified persons. 9 Deposition transcripts shall be considered confidential material. 10 8. If any confidential material, subject to this protective order, are included 11 in any papers to be filed in Court, such papers shall be labeled “confidential – Subject to 12 Court Order” and filed under seal until further order of this Court. 13 9. In the event that any of the above-described confidential material is used 14 in any court proceeding in this action, it shall not lose its confidential status through 15 such use, and the party using such shall take all reasonable steps to maintain its 16 confidentiality during such use. 17 10. The execution of this Order shall not: 18 (a) constitute a waiver of any party’s right to seek from the Court at a 19 future time an order which provides greater, lesser, or no restriction of access to 20 confidential material; or 21 (b) be construed as an admission or agreement that any document 22 designated as confidential material is, in fact, confidential or otherwise entitled to 23 any protective relief except by virtue of this Protective Order. 24 11. Upon termination of this case, counsel for the parties shall assemble all 25 protected records, all deposition transcripts, and all copies of same, and destroy these 26 documents. Each party shall certify the destruction thereof. 27 28 ________________________________________________________________________________ 3 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED: 2 3 4 5 Dated: 9/10/2019. STAMMER, McKNIGHT, BARNUM & BAILEY LLP 6 ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 7 ____________________________________________________________ 8 /s/ Michelle Pepper By_________________________________ 9 Michelle Pepper, Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO, ANITA HARPER 10 11 Dated: 9/6/2019. THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C. 12 13 By_____/s/ Thornton Davidson 14 ______________________________ Thornton Davidson, Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 HERARDO DIONICIO MARTINEZ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________________________________________________________ 4 1 2 ____ ATTACHMENT A 3 NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT 4 5 I, ____________________ do solemnly swear that I am fully familiar with 6 the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order entered in HERARDO DIONICIO 7 MARTINEZ vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO; a Public Entity; ANITA HARPER, Deputy Public 8 Guardian, and Does 1-15, inclusive, United State District Court, Eastern District of 9 California Case No.: 1:18-CV-00793-LJO-BAM, and hereby agree to comply with and be 10 bound by the terms and conditions of said Order unless and until modified by further 11 Order of this Court. I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of said Court for purposes of 12 enforcing this Order. 13 Dated: _______________ 14 ___________________________ /s/ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________________________________________________________ 5 1 ORDER 2 The Court adopts the stipulated protective order submitted by the parties. The parties are 3 advised that pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of 4 California, any documents subject to this protective order to be filed under seal must be 5 accompanied by a written request which complies with Local Rule 141 prior to sealing. The 6 party making a request to file documents under seal shall be required to show good cause for 7 documents attached to a non-dispositive motion or compelling reasons for documents attached to 8 a dispositive motion. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 Within five (5) days of any approved document filed under seal, the party shall file a redacted 10 copy of the sealed document. The redactions shall be narrowly tailored to protect only the 11 information that is confidential or was deemed confidential. Additionally, the parties shall 12 consider resolving any dispute arising under this protective order according to the Court’s 13 informal discovery dispute procedures. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: September 12, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________________________________________________________ 6