The opinion
1 Bruce J. Berger #133320
Michelle Pepper, #216444
2 STAMMER, McKNIGHT, BARNUM & BAILEY LLP
2540 W. Shaw Lane, Suite 110
3 Fresno, California 93711
Telephone: (559) 449-0571
4 Facsimile: (559) 432-2619
5 Attorneys for Defendants, COUNTY OF FRESNO and ANITA HARPER
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 HERARDO DIONICIO MARTINEZ, ) CASE NO.: 1:18-CV-00793-LJO-BAM
)
12 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
) REGARDING RECORDS
13 v. ) PERTAINING TO DEPENDENT
) ADULT CONSERVATEE
14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, a Public Entity; )
ANITA HARPER, Deputy Public )
15 Guardian; and DOES 1-15, inclusive, )
)
16 Defendants. )
)
17 )
18 Subject to approval of this Court, defendants by and through counsel Bruce
19 Berger and Michelle Pepper, and plaintiff through his counsel of record Thornton
20 Davidson, hereby stipulate to the following protective order regarding information and
21 records obtained and created in the course of providing intake, assessment, and services
22 to dependent adult conservatee Robert Camarillo:
23 1. The parties agree Robert Camarillo is a developmentally delayed
24 dependent adult under a conservatorship and his acting Deputy Public Guardian is
25 Stacy Mauro, deputy public guardian for the Fresno County Public Guardian.
26 2. Pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 4514 all
27 information and records obtained in the course of providing intake, assessment, and
28
________________________________________________________________________________
1
1 services to persons with developmental disabilities shall be confidential and may only be
2 disclosed under specific circumstances.
3 3. A dispute has arisen as to whether it is and was in the best interest of the
4 conservatee to have visitation and/or contact with plaintiff Herardo Dionicio Martinez.
5 In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Herardo Dionicio Martinez claims discrimination and his
6 constitutional rights of free association are being violated by Robert Camarillo’s
7 conservator.
8 4. Notwithstanding the confidentiality of information and records obtained
9 in the course of providing intake, assessment, and services to a person with
10 developmental disabilities, namely Robert Camarillo, such information and records
11 shall be disclosed as it is relevant and responsive to the relationship between Herardo
12 Donicio Martinez and Robert Camarillo. Said “confidential material” may include
13 employee narratives and Periodic Evaluations of Conservatee. The parties agree that
14 information pertaining to Herardo Dionicio Martinez contained within employee
15 narratives and Periodic Evaluations of Conservatee pertaining to the conservatorship of
16 Robert Camarillo shall be produced if it is responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
17 The parties further agree that information on the documents which does not pertain to
18 Plaintiff Martinez shall be redacted.
19 5. Any documents produced from Robert Camarillo’s conservatorship file
20 shall be considered and treated as confidential and may be disclosed or made available
21 only to the Court, to counsel for the parties in this matter (including the paralegal,
22 clerical, and secretarial staff employed by such counsel), and to the “qualified person”
23 designated below:
24 a) Fresno County Risk Management on behalf of the Fresno County
25 Board of Supervisors;
26 b) experts, consultants, psychologists, psychiatrists, or other health
27 care professionals retained by such counsel to assist in the prosecution, defense, or
28 settlement of this action;
________________________________________________________________________________
2
1 c) court reporters employed in this action;
2 d) a witness at any deposition or other proceeding in this action; and
3 e) any other person as to whom the parties in writing agree.
4 6. Each “qualified person” to whom disclosure of the confidential material is
5 made shall prior to the time of disclosure be provided by the person furnishing such
6 materials a copy of this Order, and shall execute a nondisclosure agreement in the form
7 of Attachment A, to be maintained by counsel.
8 7. Depositions shall be taken only in the presence of qualified persons.
9 Deposition transcripts shall be considered confidential material.
10 8. If any confidential material, subject to this protective order, are included
11 in any papers to be filed in Court, such papers shall be labeled “confidential – Subject to
12 Court Order” and filed under seal until further order of this Court.
13 9. In the event that any of the above-described confidential material is used
14 in any court proceeding in this action, it shall not lose its confidential status through
15 such use, and the party using such shall take all reasonable steps to maintain its
16 confidentiality during such use.
17 10. The execution of this Order shall not:
18 (a) constitute a waiver of any party’s right to seek from the Court at a
19 future time an order which provides greater, lesser, or no restriction of access to
20 confidential material; or
21 (b) be construed as an admission or agreement that any document
22 designated as confidential material is, in fact, confidential or otherwise entitled to
23 any protective relief except by virtue of this Protective Order.
24 11. Upon termination of this case, counsel for the parties shall assemble all
25 protected records, all deposition transcripts, and all copies of same, and destroy these
26 documents. Each party shall certify the destruction thereof.
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________
3
1 IT IS SO STIPULATED:
2
3
4
5
Dated: 9/10/2019. STAMMER, McKNIGHT, BARNUM & BAILEY LLP
6 ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
7 ____________________________________________________________
8 /s/ Michelle Pepper
By_________________________________
9 Michelle Pepper, Attorneys for Defendants,
COUNTY OF FRESNO, ANITA HARPER
10
11 Dated: 9/6/2019. THORNTON DAVIDSON, P.C.
12
13
By_____/s/ Thornton Davidson
14 ______________________________
Thornton Davidson, Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 HERARDO DIONICIO MARTINEZ
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________
4
1
2 ____ ATTACHMENT A
3 NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
4
5 I, ____________________ do solemnly swear that I am fully familiar with
6 the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order entered in HERARDO DIONICIO
7 MARTINEZ vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO; a Public Entity; ANITA HARPER, Deputy Public
8 Guardian, and Does 1-15, inclusive, United State District Court, Eastern District of
9 California Case No.: 1:18-CV-00793-LJO-BAM, and hereby agree to comply with and be
10 bound by the terms and conditions of said Order unless and until modified by further
11 Order of this Court. I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of said Court for purposes of
12 enforcing this Order.
13 Dated: _______________
14 ___________________________
/s/
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________
5
1 ORDER
2 The Court adopts the stipulated protective order submitted by the parties. The parties are
3 advised that pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of
4 California, any documents subject to this protective order to be filed under seal must be
5
accompanied by a written request which complies with Local Rule 141 prior to sealing. The
6
party making a request to file documents under seal shall be required to show good cause for
7
documents attached to a non-dispositive motion or compelling reasons for documents attached to
8
a dispositive motion. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2009).
9
Within five (5) days of any approved document filed under seal, the party shall file a redacted
10
copy of the sealed document. The redactions shall be narrowly tailored to protect only the
11
information that is confidential or was deemed confidential. Additionally, the parties shall
12
consider resolving any dispute arising under this protective order according to the Court’s
13
informal discovery dispute procedures.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17 Dated: September 12, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________
6