Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Finch v. City of Wichita

United States District Court, D. Kansas

May 25, 2018

LISA G. FINCH, Individually, as Co-Administrator of the Estate of Andrew Thomas Finch, deceased, and as Next Friend for her Minor Granddaughter AF; DOMINICA C. FINCH, as Co-Administrator of the Estate of Andrew Thomas Finch, deceased; and ALI ABDELHADI, Plaintiffs,

          Rick E. Bailey, KS # 11583 Conlee, Schmidt & Emerson, LLP Andrew M. Stroth (Pro Hac Vice) Carlton Odim (Pro Hac Vice) Action Injury Law Group, LLC Alexa Van Brunt Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

          Attorney J. Steven Pigg # 09213 Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, L.L.P. Jennifer L. Magana #15519 Sharon L. Dickgrafe #14071 City Attorney ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS



         The parties agree that during the course of discovery it will be necessary to disclose certain confidential information relating to the subject matter of this action. The parties also agree that certain 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 disclosures and discovery in this case will likely involve private, confidential information relating to personnel records of employees' of Defendant City of Wichita and financial records of Plaintiffs.

         For good cause shown under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), the court grants the parties' joint request and 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) Financial records of Plaintiffs and any related materials; and
(b) Personnel files of individual employees of Defendant City of Wichita. Information or documents that are available to the public may not be designated as Confidential Information.

         3. Form and Timing of Designation. Any documents a party believes are “Confidential Information” and therefore subject to protection under this Order shall be designated as such by marking or placing the words “CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” (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 of 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 designated document as confidential, the designating attorney or party appearing pro se thereby 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 7 days after discovery of the inadvertent failure.

         5. Depositions. Deposition testimony will be deemed confidential only if designated as such when the deposition is taken or within a reasonable time period after receipt of the deposition transcript. Such designation must be specific as to the portions of the transcript and/or any exhibits to be protected.

         6. Protection 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.