Berry v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

1 J(Nohenv aTd.a W Beanr dNlaon. d7,2 E0s7q).

2 WEIL & DRAGE, APC 2500 Anthem Village Drive Henderson, NV 89052 702-314-1905 Phone • 702-314-1909 Fax [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff, DeMARLO BERRY [counsel continued on page following the caption] 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA DeMARLO BERRY, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:19-CV-640-APG-NJK 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, a government entity; CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of AS AMENDED Nevada and a government entity; KAREN GOOD, an individual and an employee of a government entity; NORMAN ZIOLA, an individual and an employee of a government entity; PHIL FABIAN, an individual and an employee of a government entity; GREG JOLLEY, an individual and an employee of a government entity; WILLIAM KEETON, an individual and an employee of a government entity; and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

1 N(Nicekw B Yrousrkti nB, aEr sNq.o . 2844405) Emma Freudenberger, Esq. (New York Bar No. 4624045) Len Kamdang, Esq.

4 (New York Bar No. 4345179) Admitted Pro Hac Vice NEUFELD SCHECK & BRUSTIN, LLP Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 212-965-9081 Phone • 212-965-9084 Fax [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Craig C. Coburn, Esq. (Utah Bar No. 00688) Steven H. Bergman, Esq. (Utah Bar No. 13641) Samantha E. Wilcox, Esq.

13 (Utah Bar No. 15284) Being Admitted Pro Hac Vice Application Pending RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON Wells Fargo Center, 15th Floor 299 S. Main Street (84111) P.O. Box 2465 Salt Lake City, UT 84110-2465 801-531-2000 Phone • 801-532-5506 Fax [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 20 PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 22 COMES NOW, the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel of record and hereby stipulate and submit this Proposed Protective Order which will govern the handling of confidential discovery in this case.

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to the relief requested herein.

27 WHEREAS, discovery in this case will require the disclosure of confidential documents and related information including, but not limited to private medical, personal and financial information and records of Plaintiff DeMarlo Berry. Accordingly, good cause having been shown: 1. For the purposes of this Order, “Confidential Information” shall mean any documents, evidence, testimony, materials or other information, whether written or oral, exchanged, revealed or presented in these proceedings, designated in good faith as “Confidential” by either party.

Confidential Information shall include, but not be limited to the private and confidential medical, The Court d8eclinpeesrs oton aall loorw fi ncaonncfiidale inntfioarlimtya tdioens iogfn tahteio Pnlsai nbtaifsfe idn colund binrgo aPdla intiff’s medical records, categories of documents. Instead, a confidentiality designation may be made if ther9e is pah gysoioodlo gfaicitahl banads/iosr gprsoyucnhidaetrdic o rne ctohred sp, ainrtmicautela rre icnofrodrsm, eamtiopnlo aymt ent records, and correspondence issue for each document.

10 between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s friends or family. Documents and information shall not be designated Confidential Information to the extent they are otherwise publicly available.

2. Confidential Information supplied by the parties shall be reviewed only by the parties in this litigation, attorneys and their supervisors as well as secretaries, investigators, paralegals, interns, staff, consultants, witnesses, any experts retained by the parties for purposes of this case and others by written consent of the parties or order by the court. Confidential Information supplied by the parties shall not be reviewed by or disclosed to any other persons not associated with this case and shall not otherwise be disclosed in any way that is inconsistent with the terms of this Order.

3. If a party believes that any pleading, exhibit, deposition transcript, document or other written material to be produced by that party contains Confidential Information, the party shall either stamp each page containing such information as “Confidential” or designate such documents as “Confidential” by bates number in a writing directed to the opposing party’s counsel. The inadvertent failure of a party to mark or designate information or testimony as Confidential at the time of its production or utterance shall not constitute a waiver of the protections provided herein, so long as said oversight is recognized and rectified in a reasonably timely manner. No document shall be presumed to be confidential until and unless a party explicitly designates it as “Confidential Information.”

4. A party may challenge the designation of information produced during this action as “Confidential” by bringing the issue to the attention of the Court via telephone conference or a motion for an appropriate order, provided, however, in accordance with Local Rule 26-7, the receiving party must first make a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute informally with the producing party. A good faith effort must include ample notice, and an opportunity to review the subject issue, discuss it with the parties, and respond in writing if necessary to protect the record herein. Unless and until the parties agree that information designated as “Confidential” is not entitled to the protections conferred by such designation, or, in the absence of agreement, the Court so rules, said information shall remain Confidential Information subject to this Protective Order.

5. Each party receiving Confidential Information will take steps to ensure that disclosure is strictly limited to persons so authorized under this Protective Order in ¶2 above,and is maintained in a manner that prevents its use for purposes not authorized in this Protective Order. All Confidential Information, whether contained in answers to interrogatories, documents, deposition transcripts or exhibits, pleadings, shall be kept in such a manner sufficient to protect the confidential nature of the information and such Confidential Information shall, at all times, be maintained in the utmost confidentiality.

6. Any party may file a motion for leave to file under seal any pleading or other See order issued concurre2n4tly hseurbemwiitshsi.on filed in this proceeding which contains Confidential Information.

25 7. Each party shall be responsible for maintaining in a secure manner all copies of Confidential Information received by that party or its representatives, consultants, officers or employees, or otherwise provided by the other party.

1 8. This Protective Order and the production of any Confidential Information pursuant thereto are not intended as a waiver of any privilege or right. Disclosure of Confidential Information may not be compelled simply because it is covered by this Order. Further, this Protective Order is not intended to waive any objections that may be raised at the time of trial.

9. The provisions of the Protective Order are without prejudice to the right of any party to: (a) apply to the Court for a further protective order relating to any Confidential Information or relating to discovery in this litigation, (b) apply to the Court for an order removing the Confidential Information designation (subject to the procedure described in ¶ 4 above) and (c) apply to the Court for an order permitting use or disclosure of particular documents marked as Confidential during a hearing or at trial.

10. The parties shall communicate the confidentiality requirements of this Protective Order to every person who is given access, pursuant to the terms of this Order, to Confidential Information produced by the other party.

16 11. In the event that any Confidential Information is used in any court proceeding in connection with this litigation, the parties shall take all steps reasonably required to protect its confidentiality during such use, provided that the parties shall meet and confer to determine how the parties’ interests can be best accommodated at trial.

12. Either party may seek remedial relief in Court for a breach or threatened breach of this Order in accordance with applicable law.

DATED: 1st day of November, 2019.

24 Respectfully submitted, MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING WEIL & DRAGE, APC By: /s/ Craig R. Anderson Esq By: /s/_John T. Wendland___________ 27 Craig R. Anderson, Esq John T. Wendland, Esq.

Nevada Bar No. 6882 Nevada Bar No. 7207 28 Kathleen A. Wilde, Esq 2500 Anthem Village Drive 1 Nevada Bar No. 12522 Henderson, NV 89052 10001 Park Run Drive 2 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Nick Brustin, Esq.

3 Attorneys for Las Vegas Emma Freudenberger, Esq.

Metropolitan Police Department, Len Kamdang, Esq.

4 Ofc. Karen Good, Ofc. Norman Ziola, NEUFELD SCHECK & BRUSTIN, LLP Ofc. Greg Jolley, and Ofc. William 99 Hudson Street, 8 Floor 5 Keeton New York, NY 10013 LEWIS BRISMOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Craig C. Coburn, Esq.

8 Steven H. Bergman, Esq.

By: /s/Robert Freeman, Esq Samantha Wilcox, Esq.

9 Robert W. Freeman, Jr. Esq. RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON Nevada Bar No. 3062 Wells Fargo Center, 15" Floor 10 Eunice M. Beattie, Esq. 299 S. Main Street (84111) u Nevada Bar No. 14198 P.O. Box 2465 6385 S. Rainbow Blvd, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84110-2465 12 Las Vegas, NV 89118 Attorney for Defendant Clark County Attorneys for Plaintiff, 13 DeMARLO BERRY WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN || & DICKER LLP By: /s/Karen L. Bashor, Esq 16 Karen L. Bashor Nevada Bar No. 11913 17 300 South 4" Street, 11" FI.

Las Vegas, NV 89101 18 Attorney for Defendant Clark County IT IS SO ORDERED: JIN NANCY J:-KQPPE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 DATED: November 4, 2019 & DRAGE NV {01600570:1} Page 6 of 7