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.

Kozacenko v. Murrill

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 9, 2013

OLEGS KOZACENKO, Plaintiff,
v.
California Highway Patrol Officer ANDREW P. MURRILL (Badge #19671), California Highway Patrol Officer J. SHERMAN (Badge # 11614) California Highway Patrol Sergeant KEVIN PIERCE; California Highway Patrol Lieutenant JOHN ARRABIT; California Highway Patrol Assistant Chief KENNETH HILL; and California Highway Patrol Commander Chief STEPHEN LERWILL, Defendants.

LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ, STEWART KATZ, State Bar #127425, Sacramento, California, Attorney for Plaintiff.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, PETER A. MESHOT, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, JILL SCALLY, Deputy Attorney General, State Bar No. 161513 Sacramento, CA Attorneys for Defendants.

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by, among and between the parties to the above-captioned action through their counsel of record, that the documents described herein may be designated as "Confidential" and produced subject to the following Protective Order:

1. Categories of documents described as follows:

(a) Portions of the Personnel Records of California Highway Patrol Officer Andrew P. Murrill;

(b) Portions of the Personnel records, of California Highway Patrol Officer J. Sherman;

2. The portions designated as confidential contain information that is not available to the public, statutorily protected under state law and information in which Murrill, Sherman and potentially other individuals have a privacy interest in.
3. A Court approved protective order is appropriate pursuant to Local Rule 141.1 because the Court stated that such an order would be signed at a hearing on October 18, 2013, and because the employing agency does not believe it can lawfully waive its perceived statutory duties to protect the confidentiality of the materials subject to this order without the imprimatur of the Court.
4. The disclosed documents shall be used solely in connection with the civil action of Kozacenko v. State of California, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:12-cv-02196-MCE-DAD. The parties do not waive any objections to the admissibility of the documents or portions thereof in future proceedings in this action, including trial.
5. A party may only designate as "Confidential" a document which it has determined in good faith to be: (a) confidential 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, such that third parties would be required to maintain the information in confidence. By designating a document or portion thereof as "Confidential, " the party making the designation avers that it can and would make a showing to the Court sufficient to justify entry of a protective order covering that document or portion thereof under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1.
6. 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.
7. 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 document in question shall continue to be treated according to its designation under the terms of this Protective Order. The producing party shall have the burden of establishing the propriety of the "Confidential" designation. A party shall not be ...

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.