Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Perrin v. County of Riverside

August 3, 2010

MARK PERRIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; DEPUTY DON GOODRICH #1781, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PEACE OFFICER, DEPUTY TONY HOXMIER, #2510, WILLIAM DI YORIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PEACE OFFICER, DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS CONTAINING PRIVATE INFORMATION OF THIRD PARTIES PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF MARK PERRIN'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, NO. 23 AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, NOS. 3&4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to stipulation of counsel and the July 22, 2010 Order of this Court concerning Defendant County of Riverside's Responses to Plaintiff Mark Perrin's Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 23 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3&4 that:

1. All documents and information identified in Paragraph 3 below which are being produced pursuant to the July 22, 2010 Order of this Court by Defendant County of Riverside in Response to Plaintiff Mark Perrin's Request for Production

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

of Documents, Set One, No. 23 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3&4 are designated by the parties and this Court as "confidential material" which shall be used solely in connection with the preparation and trial of the within case, Case No. EDCV 08-595-LLP (SSx) or any related appellate proceeding, and not for any other purpose, including any other litigation, except as otherwise permitted by written agreement of counsel for the parties or by order of a Court of competent jurisdiction. Any "confidential material" produced by Defendants or used in this litigation will be stamped or otherwise marked in a conspicuous location prior to the production or use of the document in this litigation as follows:

"CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER, Case No. EDCV 08-595-LLP (SSx)"

2. All documents and information identified in Paragraph 3 below which are being produced by Defendant County of Riverside in Response to Plaintiff Mark Perrin's Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 23 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3&4 are being produced subject to and pursuant to this protective order and the July 22, 2010 Order of this Court as these documents contain private information of third parties to which Federal courts have recognized that third party individuals have a privacy interest in not having disclosed. See DeArmand v. City of Antioch, 2009 WL 1704686, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 551 (E.D. Cal. 1990); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995)). However under federal

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

law, this Court has balanced the Plaintiff's need for the information against the privacy right asserted and has now ordered the production of said documents and information. Id.

3. The following documents and information produced by Defendants COUNTY in Response to Plaintiff Mark Perrin's Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 23 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3&4 are to be designated as "confidential material" by the parties and pursuant to the agreement and stipulation of the counsel for the parties are being produced subject to and as a result of this protective order and the July 22, 2010 Order of this Court:

(a) Legible copies of each and every crime and arrest report wherein defendants Hoxmier and Goodrich alleged themselves, together or individually, to be victims of Penal Code sections 148, 69, 243 and 245, for a period of five years prior to Plaintiff Mark Perrin's alleged incident which occurred on Martin Luther King Day January 19, 2004 in the City of Moreno Valley. (Request No. 23);

(b) The complete name, date of birth and current or last known address of the individual cited by defendant Goodrich at 10:44 a.m., January 19, 2004. To the extent this information still exists or ever existed, the County may answer by providing a copy of the citation issued pursuant to FRCP 33. (Special Interrogatory No. 3); and,

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(c) The name, date of birth and current or last known address and telephone number of the individual cited under No. 238545 by defendant Goodrich for allegedly violating V.C. §27007, October 1, 1999. The County may answer by providing a copy of the citation issued pursuant to FRCP 33. (Special Interrogatory No. 4).

4. The parties agree that the above referenced materials are sensitive and subject to certain privacy rights under both state and federal law and are deemed privileged under both state and federal law. Therefore, the parties agree that good cause exists for the issuance of this protective order, to protect the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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