UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 14, 2012
JOHN ROGOFF, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, A MUNICIPALITY, JARROD BURNS, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Sheri Pym United States Magistrate Judge
Order Regarding Temporary
The parties have stipulated that documents designated by any defendant or plaintiff as confidential are subject to this temporary protective order and subject to the following terms:
That the party obtaining such records from the opposing party:
1. Treat such documents as confidential;
2. That such documents so designated not be disseminated;
3. That any personal information of officers, such as home addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, spouse and children's names etc. can be redacted by the propounding party.
4. This protective order shall remain in force for 90 days after the protected documents have been served upon the opposing party, or, if the propounding party seeks a permanent protective order within this 90 days, until such time as that order authorizes or denies such protection, or if the parties stipulate to extend the time for the expiration of the temporary protective order.
5. In the event that the parties cannot reach an agreement as to the content, breadth, or application of a proposed protective order, and if the party seeking the protection does not seek a protective order for the documents within 90 days after service of the documents upon the opposing party, this temporary protective order will lapse.
Documents sought to be protected should be marked on their front and designated as confidential. These markings should not obscure any writing. The duty to mark such documents as confidential shall be the obligation of the party seeking the protection.
STIPULATION ACCEPTED/ SO ORDERED:
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.