Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holm v. City of Barstow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - EASTERN DIVISION


January 28, 2009

PETER HOLM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF BARSTOW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE STIPULATION GOVERNING THE DESIGNATION AND HANDLING OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS [CHANGES MADE BY COURT]

The Court has reviewed the Stipulation Governing the Designation and Handling of Confidential Materials between all parties that has been filed concurrently with this proposed order. Based upon a review of the record, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. All documents produced in discovery which relate to a third-party's private, confidential, and/or medical information, including, but not limited to, discovery responses, initial disclosures, and supplemental disclosures which relate to a third-party's private, confidential, and/or medical information are subject to this Stipulation (the "Subject Documents");

2. Absent further order of the Court, and subject to paragraph 3 below, the Subject Documents shall be kept strictly confidential and may only be examined by the attorneys for the parties, their agents, employees, consultants, witnesses, court reporters, deponents, the parties themselves, and/or the Court (and its personnel), and only in connection with this subject litigation, and shall not be published to any third-parties or used in connection with any other litigation;

3. In the event that a party wishes to lodge, file or otherwise submit documents to the Court, such party must seek leave to submit the documents under seal in accordance with Local Rule 79. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing standards for sealing documents attached to dispositive and non-dispositive motions). The City and Individual Defendants do not waive any right to seek a protective order on the grounds that the documents utilized by Plaintiff contain private or confidential information;

4. In the event that the City or Individual Defendants decide to seek a protective order because they believe that the documents disclose private or confidential information, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the redaction of potentially private or confidential information;

5. After the conclusion of this litigation, Plaintiff shall return or destroy the Subject Documents in Plaintiff's possession, custody or control within 45 calendar days of Defendant's request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090128

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.