Alford v. Modesto City School District ( 2024 )

1 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP 2 Matthew K. Hawkins, #131117 matt.hawkins@mccormickbarstow.com 3 Laura A. Wolfe, #266751 laura.wolfe@mccormickbarstow.com 4 1125 I Street, Suite 1 Modesto, California 95354 5 Telephone: (209) 524-1100 Facsimile: (209) 524-1188 6 Attorneys for Defendants MODESTO CITY 7 SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEAN DAVIS, MICHAEL COATS, BRIAN BERGERSON, 8 and MARLA MACK 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SAMUEL MICHAEL ALFORD, Case No. 1:20-cv-01767-KJM-KJN 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE 14 v. ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 15 MODESTO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEAN DAVIS, MICHAEL COATS, BRIAN 16 BERGERSON, MARLA MACK and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 The parties to this case agree that during the course of discovery, certain information 21 requested by the parties in the above-entitled action may contain information that may be 22 considered: (a) confidential, sensitive, or potentially invasive of an individuals’ privacy interests; 23 (b) not generally known; or (c) in violation of HIPAA, and if disclosed to third parties, could require 24 such third parties to maintain the information in confidence, including documents that may consist 25 of or contain medical records, personnel information, identities of other care facility residents, or 26 other confidential. 27 / / / 1 In order to protect confidential information obtained by the parties in connection with this 2 case, the parties, by and through their respective counsel and subject to approval of the court agree 3 as follows: 4 Documents produced by parties to this action, are subject to this Protective Order. 5 Protected Information under this Protective Order may only be Disclosed to the following 6 persons: 7 a) Counsel for the parties; 8 b) Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel 9 referred to in subpart (a) directly above, including stenographic deposition reporters or 10 videographers retained in connection with this action; 11 c) The Court, Court personnel and the finder of fact engaged in proceedings as 12 are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial, any motions thereto and the trial of the 13 Action, subject to the Court’s rulings on motions and objections of counsel; 14 d) Any expert or consultant retained in connection with this action but only to 15 the extent reasonably necessary to assist or advise counsel for that party, or as necessary while 16 testifying under oath in the Action; 17 e) Any third party administrator or insurance carrier for the defendants; and 18 f) The parties, to the extent reasonably necessary to assist their counsel in this 19 litigation or for their counsel to advise them with respect to the litigation. 20 This Stipulation is not applicable to information that is received through other sources at any 21 time. 22 After the conclusion of the Action, all disclosed information, in whatever form stored or 23 reproduced, shall be destroyed to the extent allowed by law. However, counsel may retain the 24 documents for archival purposes. The conclusion of the Action means the entry of a dismissal of the 25 Action or a termination of the Action following applicable post-trial motions, appeal, and/or retrial. 26 The parties will also take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that persons to whom they 27 disclose another party’s Protected Information destroy or return the Protected Information to the 1 This Protective Order shall be in effect until further order of this Court. 3 || Dated: March 21, 2024 LAW OFFICES OF FRANK PACHECO By: /s/ Frank M. Pacheco 5 Frank M. Pacheco 6 Attorney for Plaintiff 8 9 Dated: March 21, 2024 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 10 11 . . By: /s/ Matthew K. Hawkins 12 Matthew K. Hawkins Attorneys for Defendants 13 ORDER 15 The court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order. (See ECF No. 58.) The 16 stipulation comports with the relevant authorities and the court’s applicable local rule. See L.R. M 141.1. The court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. The Local 18 Rules state that once an action is closed, “unless otherwise ordered, the court will not retain 9 jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f); 20 see also, e.g., MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 WL 495778 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 03, 2017) 71 (noting that courts in the district generally do not agree to retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning 22 protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the court will not retain jurisdiction over this 23 protective order once the case is closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 28, 2024 7) Ae ge ee 25 C_aK« 7 fv. it _ (Bm, 26 CAROLYN □□ DELANEY? SS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 21,mode.1767 BARSTOW, WAYTE & ~