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.

Snyder v. Riverside County

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division

July 25, 2017

JOSHUA SNYDER, Plaintiff,
v.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          ARTHUR K. CUNNINGHAM, STEPHANIE J. TANADA, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, CHRISTOPHER D. LOCKWOOD, Arias & Lockwood, Attorneys at Law, Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE and STAN SNIFF

          PROTECTIVE ORDER

          Hon. Sheri Pym United States Magistrate Judge

         In order to protect the confidentiality of documents and information while still allowing necessary discovery, the court orders as follows:

         1. Documents and information that potentially can jeopardize jail security is subject to a qualified privilege and should not be provided in discovery except pursuant to a pursuant to a tightly drawn protective order. Fourhorn v. City and County of Denver, 261 F.R.D. 564 (D. Col. 2009); Castle v. Jallah, 12 F.R.D. 618 (E.D. Va. 1992); Clark v. Louisiana, 2014 WL 5586416 (M.D. La. 2014); Walker v. Wall, 2010 WL 4903825 (D. R.I. 2010). See also Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1104 (9th Cir. 1080) (“Courts must accord wide-ranging deference to prison administrators ‘in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.' [Citation]”).

         2. Defendants may designate specific documents or specific types of information as confidential. Any document and information so designated shall be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. The documents and information so designated shall be limited to documents and information which are important to jail security.

         3. Absent a further stipulation or court order, any documents and information designated as confidential shall not be conveyed, transferred, published, distributed, copied, duplicated or disseminated except as follows:

(a) To Plaintiff.
(b) To attorneys licensed to practice in the State of California and to recognized expert witnesses, and their staff.

         4. Prior to the dissemination of any such documents or information pursuant to this Protective Order, Plaintiff shall provide such person a copy of this Protective Order and secure such person's agreement in writing to be bound by it.

         5. The usual protective order for these types of documents and information is an attorney and expert only order. See Trujillo v. Jacquez, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113850, 12 (N.D. Cal. 2014; Parrish v. Solis, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75513, 14 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (same); Narog v. City of Redwood City, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 59435, 9 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (same); Wayne v. Kirk, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17692, *34 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (HIPAA); Koester v. YMCA of Greater St. Louis, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68886, *4 (E.D. Mo. 2015). With a pro se plaintiff, that is obviously impossible, but the reasons for that type of order still apply. Allowing other inmates who could be transferred to County jails in the future to obtain information concerning jail security issues could jeopardize jail security. Plaintiff is allowed to view documents and written information subject to this protective order under the supervision of custody staff, but is not allowed to keep the documents in his cell. Plaintiff is expressly prohibited from showing the documents to any other inmate and is expressly prohibited from discussing the contents of the documents or the information subject to this protective order with any other inmate.

         6. Plaintiff is precluded from using the documents or information obtained from the documents except for the purposes of litigating the present lawsuit.

         7. At the conclusion of this lawsuit, any documents provided pursuant to this Protective Order shall be returned to counsel for Defendants.

         8. Any document that has been designated as confidential pursuant to this Protective Order shall be filed with the Court only with an application under Local Civil Rule 79-5.1 to file it under seal, unless there has been a prior stipulation or order designating the document as non-confidential. Any information obtained from documents that have been designated as confidential pursuant to this Protective Order shall be filed with the Court only with an application under Local Civil Rule 79-5.1 to file it under seal, unless there has been a prior stipulation or order designating the document as non-confidential.

         9. The parties may stipulate that any document which was initially designated as confidential and subject to this Protective Order is not confidential and not subject to this Protective Order. If a stipulation cannot be reached, Plaintiff may apply to the Court for an order that a document which was designated as confidential and subject to this Protective Order is not confidential and not subject to this Protective Order. Any such application to the Court must be filed with an application under Local Civil Rule 79-5.1 to file under seal any document or item of information ...


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.