Alford v. Modesto City School District

1 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP Matthew K. Hawkins, #131117 [email protected] Laura A. Wolfe, #266751 [email protected] 1125 I Street, Suite 1 Modesto, California 95354 Telephone: (209) 524-1100 Facsimile: (209) 524-1188 Attorneys for Defendants MODESTO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEAN DAVIS, MICHAEL COATS, BRIAN BERGERSON, and MARLA MACK 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 MODESTO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEAN DAVIS, MICHAEL COATS, BRIAN BERGERSON, MARLA MACK and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants.

19 PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 The parties to this case agree that during the course of discovery, certain information requested by the parties in the above-entitled action may contain information that may be considered: (a) confidential, sensitive, or potentially invasive of an individuals’ privacy interests; (b) not generally known; or (c) in violation of HIPAA, and if disclosed to third parties, could require such third parties to maintain the information in confidence, including documents that may consist of or contain medical records, personnel information, identities of other care facility residents, or other confidential.

27 / / / 1 In order to protect confidential information obtained by the parties in connection with this case, the parties, by and through their respective counsel and subject to approval of the court agree 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 persons: 7 a) Counsel for the parties; 8 b) Paralegal, clerical, and secretarial personnel regularly employed by counsel referred to in subpart (a) directly above, including stenographic deposition reporters or videographers retained in connection with this action; 11 c) The Court, Court personnel and the finder of fact engaged in proceedings as are necessarily incidental to the preparation for the trial, any motions thereto and the trial of the 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 the extent reasonably necessary to assist or advise counsel for that party, or as necessary while 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 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 time.

22 After the conclusion of the Action, all disclosed information, in whatever form stored or reproduced, shall be destroyed to the extent allowed by law. However, counsel may retain the documents for archival purposes. The conclusion of the Action means the entry of a dismissal of the 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 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 Dated: March 21, 2024 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 11 . .

By: /s/ Matthew K. Hawkins 12 Matthew K. Hawkins Attorneys for Defendants ORDER 15 The court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order. (See ECF No. 58.) The 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 Rules state that once an action is closed, “unless otherwise ordered, the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f); see also, e.g., MD Helicopters, Inc. v. Aerometals, Inc., 2017 WL 495778 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 03, 2017) (noting that courts in the district generally do not agree to retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the court will not retain jurisdiction over this 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 21,mode.1767 BARSTOW, WAYTE & ~