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.

Rodriguez v. Patino

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 27, 2017

VICTOR EMANUEL RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES EDWARD PATINO, an individual; WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION, LCC; DOES I through; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

          Eric Blank, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          STEPHENSON & DICKINSON, P.C. By: BRUCE SCOTT DICKINSON, ESQ. MICHAEL HOTTMAN, ESQ. JACQUELYN M. FRANCO, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants

          STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIVE ORDER

         Pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(1), it is hereby stipulated and agreed by the undersigned counsel for each of the parties to this action that, in order to preserve and maintain the confidentiality of certain documents that contain proprietary, trade secret and confidential information and/or other documents or information which may otherwise be sensitive, and which will be obtained from Wal-Mart Stores, Ine, and related Wal-Mart entities ("Wal-Mart"), the following Confidentiality Protective Order shall be entered by the Court.

         CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIVE ORDER

         Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ordered as follows:

         1. Documents and information to be provided by Wal-Mart, that are claimed to contain confidential information, including copies thereof and information contained in such material, shall hereafter be referred to as "Protected Documents" and marked as "Confidential - Subject to Protective Order, " or similar language in accordance with the provisions of this Order shall only be used, shown or disclosed as provided in this Order.

         2. A list identifying Protected Documents will be provided to Plaintiff and updated as necessary. The list itself will be considered a Protected Document.

         3. As used in this Order, the term "documents" means all written material, videotapes and all other tangible items, produced in whatever format (e.g., hard copy, electronic, digital, etc.) and on whatever media (e.g., hard copy, videotape, computer diskette, CD-ROM, DVD, hard drive or otherwise).

         3. To preserve the formatting/presentation of certain data, certain documents will be produced in their native format. These documents, produced in native format, will not be individually stamped or labeled. Instead, the CDs containing the document will be labeled with the confidential designation. Any person who copies the CDs or prints any of the documents stored on the CDs must stamp or label the copies or prints with a Protected Documents designation.

         4. The designated Protected Documents and copies shall be marked by placing the notice "Confidential - Subject to Protective Order, " or similar notice, on the document and all copies..

         5. Protected Documents and any copies thereof received pursuant to this Order shall be maintained confidential, shall be used only for preparation for the trial and prosecution of this lawsuit, and maybe disclosed only to (a) Plaintiff; (b) Attorneys for Plaintiff and their paralegal and clerical staffs, and (c) Experts and consultants retained or individuals consulted by Plaintiff or their attorneys for assistance in trial preparation or for testimony ("Recipients"), provided that no disclosure shall be made to any expert or consultant who is employed by a competitor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, and related Wal-Mart entities.

         6. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), in the event of disclosure (including production) of Protected Documents that contain legally privileged information that a party or nonparty later claims was inadvertently disclosed, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, this agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the protections afforded the inadvertent disclosure legally privileged information..attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or other grounds which the Producing Party would be entitled in the Litigation or any other federal or state proceeding. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(e). The Receiving Party hereby agrees to return, sequester, or destroy any Privileged Information disclosed or produced by the Producing Party upon request. If the Receiving Party reasonably believes that Privileged Information has been inadvertently disclosed or produced to it, it shall promptly notify the Producing Party and sequester such information until instructions as to disposition are received. The failure of any party to provide notice or instructions under this Paragraph shall not constitute a waiver of, or estoppel to, any claim of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or other ground for withholding production as to which the Producing Party would be entitled in the Litigation or any other federal or state proceeding. This provision is designed to foreclose any arguments that this agreement, or the disclosure of Protected Documents under it, waives a legally recognized claim of privilege, including without limitation the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege because the disclosure:

(a) was not inadvertent by the Producing Party;
(b) that the Producing Party did not take reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure of ...

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.