IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 24, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JOSEPH CABRERA SABLAN AND JAMES NINETE LEON GUERRERO, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
I. Introduction & Scope of Order
On September 8, 2009 this Court granted Defendants' motion for discovery of information in the possession of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). That order was subject to the parties crafting a protective order that would be responsive to the BOP's concerns related to confidentiality and security.
This order shall apply to documents and electronically stored information produced to Defendants following the hearing held on September 8, 2009, which the BOP designates as needing protection either by copying documents on blue paper, or labeling or designating documents or files as subject to this Protective Order at the time of inspection or electronic transfer.
II. Sequestration & Embargo Provisions
1. The person or persons who, on behalf of the Government, produce electronically stored information to Defendants shall make an identical copy of the produced records on the same digital storage medium used in discovery, unless the records are made available through a web site or are transmitted FTP via the internet, in which case, if the data compilation is produced to Defendant in personal computer files, the copy shall be made on a compact disk (CD), and if the data are created using an IBM Mainframe, that copy shall be made either on tape reels or tape cartridges.
2. All documents produced to Defendants shall be marked in the lower right-hand corner, or some other uniform place, with sequential numbering that will enable them to be identified as documents covered by this Protective Order. Each document the Government seeks to have covered by this Protective Order shall be copied on either blue paper or otherwise plainly designated as subject to the terms of this protective order.
3. Counsel for Defendants shall maintain all documents and electronically stored information covered by this Order in such a way that it may not be viewed by any person except counsel for the defendants and those experts and investigators who are working with defense counsel in this case, and also the defendants themselves subject to the provisions set forth in Paragraph 6, infra.
4. Defense counsel shall be responsible for developing a method for identifying by a numeric code each person as to whose identifying information is produced to Defendants on blue paper. As to each such person, there shall be no references made to them in the public record of this case except by code designation, or as provided in Paragraph 5, infra. Defense counsel shall file under seal, and serve on counsel for the Government, a key correlating the code designation of each person with his or her name. Except as provided in Paragraph 5, infra, the key shall not be disclosed or communicated to any person other than counsel for the parties, their experts, or persons working under their direct supervision in connection with the litigation of this case.
5. None of the documents or electronically stored information produced to defense counsel pursuant to this Protective Order, and no personal identifying information contained therein or derived therefrom, shall be revealed to any other person without prior authorization of the Court, obtained upon motion filed pursuant to fifteen days' notice and served on counsel for the Government, or upon prior agreement by the Government. Pursuant to the Court's prior order, the BOP shall, by November 6, 2009, identify those documents or types of documents that should not be shown to Defendants.
6. None of the documents or electronically stored information produced to defense counsel pursuant to this Protective Order, and no personal identifying information contained therein or derived therefrom, may be possessed by Defendants themselves. This provision and Paragraph 5, supra, does not preclude defense counsel from reviewing and discussing these documents with Defendants.
7. Except as provided in Paragraphs 4 and 5, supra, none of the materials produced to Defendants on blue paper, and no information contained therein which identifies individuals shall be transferred, revealed, or used in any way or for any purpose except in connection with the litigation of this case.
8. This Order shall remain in effect after the conclusion of trial, and through any appeal and post-conviction proceedings on behalf of the defendants.
III. Provision for Inspection and Copying of Documents
The Government objects to Items 4 in Section 2.1.9 of Defendant Sablan's motion for discovery on grounds that production would be unduly burdensome. During the hearing on this matter, counsel for the BOP represented that documents responsive to this request are maintained in fourteen filing cabinets located at USP Atwater. Counsel for Defendants have offered to bear the cost of having the contents of these filing cabinets copied, or scanned to electronically stored images so that they can be inspected off-site.
The Government shall provide counsel for Defendants, or their designees, prompt access to these files for such time as is necessary, during ordinary business hours, to arrange copying or scanning. Production is to be obtained by November 9, 2009.
Counsel for Defendants will ensure that the documents they obtain pursuant to Part III of this Order are numbered as provided in Paragraph 2, supra.
Dated: September 23, 2009
DONALD R. KNIGHT Knight & Moses, LLP DAWRENCE W. RICE, JR. DANIEL J. BRODERICK Federal Defender TIVON SCHARDL Attorneys for Defendant
LAWRENCE G. BROWN United States Attorney JOSEPH L. GREEN Leritz, Plunkert & Bruning, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
C.P. DOMINIC AYOTTE Attorney-Advisor JOSEPH CABRERA SABLAN Federal Bureau of Prisons RICHARD G. NOVAK Law Offices of Richard Novak SALVATORE SCIANDRA Law Offices of Salvatore Sciandra Attorneys for Defendant JAMES NINETE LEON GUERRERO
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.