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.

Jason Terpstra v. County of Los Angeles

February 20, 2013

JASON TERPSTRA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPUTY JOSE PEREZ, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
DEPUTY ANTHONY DURAN, IN INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
AND DOES 1 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER GOVERNING DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL

Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation Governing Court Ordered Disclosure of Confidential Material, good cause having been shown pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED that the confidential material disclosed by Defendants during the discovery in this action is protected as follows:

1. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel documents and things which have been designated as confidential by defendants and defendants' counsel. For the purpose of this stipulation and order, "CONFIDENTIAL" documents shall be limited to documents disclosed by Defendants related to the personnel files of Jose Perez and Anthony Duran.

2. Confidential documents, as designated by defendants and defendants' counsel for the purposes of this stipulation, shall be designated by stamping copies of the document "CONFIDENTIAL." Stamping "CONFIDENTIAL" on the cover of any multi-page document shall designate all pages of the document as confidential, unless otherwise indicated. The "Confidential Stamp" shall not block out or obliterate any document.

3. As a condition of receiving such documentation, Plaintiff's counsel shall personally safeguard and keep confidential in their possession, all copies of the information provided by the County of Los Angeles marked CONFIDENTIAL, and all copies are to be used only for the purposes set forth below, and only for the case of Jason Terpstra v. County of Los Angeles, et al., CV 12-06354 GAF (JCGx), and for no other purpose.

4. Under no circumstances shall Confidential material either orally, or by written form, be imputed into any computer program or database or listed in any manual, notebook or other listing as it pertains to law enforcement personnel. However, this does not preclude scanning said documents so that they can be utilized for this particular case, including for trial purposes as trial exhibits in compliance with Local Rules.

5. Confidential material shall be used only for the prosecution and/or defense of the case of Jason Terpstra v. County of Los Angeles, et al., CV 12-06354 GAF (JCGx), or any appeal therefrom, and not for any business or other purpose. Under no circumstances other than those specifically provided for in this or subsequent court orders, or other than with the explicit consent in writing of the producing party with respect to specifically identified Confidential Material, shall Confidential Material or its contents in any way whatsoever be revealed, disclosed, or otherwise made known to persons other than the following:

(a) Counsel of record for parties that have appeared in this action, and the regular, paid employees of such counsel but only to the extent disclosure is necessary in connection with the representation of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's counsel will ensure its staff and employees are aware of the protective and will abide by its terms.

(b) Experts or consultants retained in good faith to assist counsel of record in the prosecution and/or defense of this action or any appeal filed herein, but only to the extent disclosure is necessary in connection with such retention and only after such expert has confirmed his or her agreement to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order by signing a Protective Order agreeing to same; However, there is no obligation for the parties to provide a copy of the signed protective order to the other side as consultants are protected by the work product doctrine. Instead, the parties agree that a representation of the opposing counsel that consultants have signed the order is sufficient until said time that expert disclosure is required by law or order.

(c) Court reporters and/or videographers who record testimony taken in the course of this litigation but only to the extent disclosure is necessary in connection with such recording and only after such reporter has confirmed his or her agreement to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order by signing a Protective Order agreeing to same; it is recognized that in the production of videotapes and/or depositions, various individuals are often involved in the process and that it will be impossible for counsel to obtain signatures of all such administrative helpers, thus only the reporter and videographer at the deposition need to sign this.

(d) Witnesses, deposed in this action or who appear at trial and/or any hearing in this action, but only to the extent disclosure is necessary for relevant questioning in connection with such deposition or hearing, and only after such witness has confirmed his or her agreement to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order by signing a Protective Order agreeing to same; However, if a witness refuses to sign a protective order that does not foreclose the deposing party from gathering the information. Instead, the parties agree they may, upon proper notice to the other party, apply ex parte for relief and that the witness will appear for a second session of his/her deposition. Should a second deposition be ordered, Counsel unnecessarily causing such shall be responsible for the court reporter costs of the additional deposition.

6. In the event a permitted individual, as defined by paragraph (a)-(d), does not consent to be bound by this Protective Order, no disclosure of Confidential Information will be made to such individual. Plaintiff's/Defendants counsel shall be responsible, where reasonable, for the failure of any third party to comply with the terms of this Order. However, only the party that actually violates this order may be subject to punishment in the form of sanctions or contempt motions.

7. Any counsel, expert, consultant or investigator retained by counsel for any party to this case shall not refer to Confidential Information in any other court proceeding subject to further order of this court, unless said information was already made public in trial or appellate hearings or unless this Order has been modified to allow it.

8. This Protective Order, and the obligations of all persons thereunder, including those relating to the disclosure and use of Confidential Information, shall survive the final termination of this case, whether such termination is by settlement, judgment, ...


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.