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.

Ratley v. United States

United States District Court, D. Kansas

October 2, 2017

MARK RATLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          Larry G. Michel Counsel for Plaintiff, Mark Ratley

          Michelle A. Jacobs Counsel for the United States

          AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER

          James P. O'Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge

         The parties agree that during the course of discovery it may be necessary to disclose certain confidential information relating to the subject matter of this action. They agree that certain categories of such information should be treated as confidential, protected from disclosure outside this litigation, and used only for purposes of prosecuting or defending this action and any appeals. The parties jointly request entry of this proposed Protective Order to limit the disclosure, dissemination, and use of certain identified categories of confidential information.

         The parties assert in support of their request that protection of the identified categories of confidential information is necessary because the information may be encompassed by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), or otherwise contain personal, private, or confidential information, including personal information, personal identifying information, and information from an employee's personnel file. In order to permit the parties to discover and use throughout this proceeding all information relevant to the subject matter of this case without making this information public and thus undermining the legislative purpose of the Privacy Act, to allow the defendant to disclose information contained in personnel records, and for good cause shown, the court, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), and subject to protection under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), the court hereby enters the following Protective Order:

         1. Scope.

         All documents and materials produced in the course of discovery of this case, including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom (hereinafter collectively “documents”), are subject to this Order concerning Confidential Information as set forth below. As there is a presumption in favor of open and public judicial proceedings in the federal courts, this Order will be strictly construed in favor of public disclosure and open proceedings wherever possible.

         2. Definition of Confidential Information.

         As used in this Order, “Confidential Information” is defined as information that the producing party designates in good faith has been previously maintained in a confidential manner and should be protected from disclosure and use outside the litigation because its disclosure and use is restricted by statute or could potentially cause harm to the interests of disclosing party or nonparties. For purposes of this Order, the parties will limit their designation of “Confidential Information” to the following categories of information or documents:

         A. Documentation contained in Connie Harzman's personnel file or credentialing file and provided in response to discovery requests. Information or documents that are available to the public may not be designated as Confidential Information.

         3. Form and Timing of Designation.

         The producing party may designate documents as containing Confidential Information and therefore subject to protection under this Order by marking or placing the words “CONFIDENTIAL” (hereinafter “the marking”) on the document and on all copies in a manner that will not interfere with the legibility of the document. As used in this Order, “copies” includes electronic images, duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions that contain the Confidential Information. The marking will be applied prior to or at the time the documents are produced or disclosed. Applying the marking to a document does not mean that the document has any status or protection by statute or otherwise except to the extent and for the purposes of this Order. Copies that are made of any designated documents must also bear the marking, except that indices, electronic databases, or lists of documents that do not contain substantial portions or images of the text of marked documents and do not otherwise disclose the substance of the Confidential Information are not required to be marked. By marking a document as confidential, the designating attorney certifies that the document contains Confidential Information as defined in this Order.

         4. Inadvertent Failure to Designate.

         Inadvertent failure to designate any document or material as containing Confidential Information will not constitute a waiver of an otherwise valid claim of confidentiality pursuant to this Order, so long as a claim of confidentiality is asserted within fifteen (15) days after discovery of the inadvertent failure.

         5.Protection of Confidential Material.

         (a) General Protections.

         Designated Confidential Information must be used or disclosed solely for purposes of prosecuting or defending this lawsuit, including any appeals, or any other related legal proceeding brought by one of the parties to this litigation.

         (b) Who May View Designated Confidential Information.

         Except with the prior written consent of the designating party or prior order of the court, designated Confidential 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.