The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants COUNTY OF SUTTER, COUNTY OF YUBA, J. PAUL PARKER, DAVID SAMSON, NORMAN BIDWELL, JOHN S. ZIL, CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, BOBBY JOE LITTLE, DAVID CALAPINI, SHAUN FLIEHMAN, KATY MULLIN, and DONICE MCGINNIS (collectively "Defendants") in good faith believe that certain documents may contain information that is (a) confidential, sensitive, or potentially invasive of an individual's privacy interests; (b) not generally known; and, (c) not normally revealed to the public or third parties or, if disclosed to third parties, would require such third parties to maintain the information in confidence:
Defendants take the position that these Confidential documents are as follows:
1. Portions of personnel records of persons employed with the Sutter County Sheriff's Office, Sutter County Jail, and/or Sutter-Yuba Mental Health Services facility involved in the subject incident(s) at issue, including but not limited to citizen complaints, and internal investigations;
2. Portions of the written policies and procedures of the Sutter County Jail (excepting those portions of the Sutter County Jail Policy Manual that have previously been disclosed to Plaintiffs pursuant to a Public Records Act request, Bates Nos. PRA000001-000273); and
3. Portions of the written policies and procedures of the Sutter County Jail Health Department applicable to the Sutter County Jail.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by, among and between the parties through their counsels of record that the documents described herein may be designated as "Confidential" by the Defendants and produced subject to the following Protective Order:
1. The disclosed documents shall be used solely in connection with the civil case of Estate of Bock v. County of Sutter, et al., Case No. CV 11 00536 (USDC EDCA). The parties do not waive any objections to the admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this case, including trial.
2. Defendant may only designate as "Confidential" a document, which it has determined in good faith to be: (a) confidential, sensitive, or potentially invasive of an individual's privacy interests; (b) not generally known; and, (c) not normally revealed to the public or third parties or, if disclosed to third parties, would require such third parties to maintain the information in confidence.
3. A party producing the documents described herein may designate those documents as confidential by affixing a mark labeling them "Confidential," provided that such marking does not obscure or obliterate the content of any record. If any confidential documents cannot be labeled with this marking, those documents shall be placed in a sealed envelope or other container that is in turn marked "Confidential" in a manner agreed upon by the disclosing and requesting parties.
4. A party may apply to the Court for an order that information or materials labeled "Confidential" are not, in fact, confidential. Prior to applying to the Court for such an order, the party seeking to reclassify Confidential information shall meet and confer with the producing party. Until the matter is resolved by the parties or the Court, the information in question shall continue to be treated according to its designation under the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order. The producing party shall have the burden of establishing the propriety of the "Confidential" designation. A party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto.
5. Documents designated under this Protective Order as "Confidential" may be disclosed only to the following persons:
(a) All counsel of and attorneys in the offices of counsel for Defendants in the case enumerated above;
(b) All counsel of record, and attorneys in the offices of counsel for Plaintiffs in ...