PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF RECORDS FROM ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA

DOUGLAS F. MCCORMICK, Magistrate Judge.

Having reviewed the Stipulation by and between Plaintiff, EDWARD REZEK, and third-party witness and custodian of records, Orange County District Attorney's Office ("OCDA"), and their attorneys of record, and in response to Plaintiff's October 28, 2016 SDT to OCDA, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court ORDERS the following:

1. The attorneys of record for Plaintiff and their staff, and any other attorney who receives said Responsive Records shall not copy nor reproduce any portion of said Records, except where necessary to submit to the Court. If any Responsive Record or Transcript is required to be submitted to the court, it shall be done so under seal, in connection with court proceedings;

2. No part of the Responsive Records disclosed pursuant to this Protective Order shall be given to any party to the present action without first agreeing to be bound by the protective order. The Responsive Records produced by OCDA pursuant to this Stipulated Protective Order shall be used solely in connection with the case of Antonio Ortiz, Luiz Ortiz v. City of Fullerton, et al., Case No. CV 16-01499 DOC (DFMx) including any associated appellate proceedings and collateral review, and not for any other purpose;

3. The Responsive Records produced to Plaintiff's counsel and any other attorneys of record in the present matter shall not be provided to any other third party, excluding this Court and Court personnel, not specifically identified within the present order;

4. If any other party to this civil litigation requests copies of the Responsive Records produced by the OCDA, counsel for OCDA shall first provide a copy of the Stipulated Protective Order to the requesting party. The requesting party shall confirm in writing that both the party and their attorney(s) of record shall be bound by the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order prior to disclosure of the requested records. The writing must also include consent by the party to whom disclosure is going to be made, to be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to any proceeding related to the enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order, including but not limited to a proceeding for contempt. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing a party to disobey a lawful subpoena issued in another action.

5. Upon receipt of the acknowledgment, OCDA will produce to the requesting party's attorney a full set of the Responsive Records,

6. At the conclusion of this matter, whether through trial, appeal, collateral review, or other final disposition, all Responsive Records produced pursuant to the Subpoena and this Stipulated Protective Order, and all copies shall be destroyed or returned to OCDA at the option of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff and any other attorney of record for a party to the present action who received the Responsive Records;

7. The production of Responsive Records and Testimony by OCDA pursuant to this Order shall not be deemed a waiver of the federal investigation privilege for any future purpose;

8. Attorneys, the parties and their respective employees, agents and other representatives, including investigators, are ordered not to disclose to any person or entity information obtained from the records without prior order of this Court;

9. This Order prohibiting any dissemination and disclosure of information from the documents and depositions applies in any further discovery proceedings; and

10. If Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, or any other person or entity seeks relief from this Order, an appropriate noticed motion is to be served on the Orange County District Attorney, through his attorney of record, and all other parties.

GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT

Plaintiff and third-party OCDA, believe that the responsive records listed above are described with sufficient particularity to comply with Ninth Circuit standards for protective orders.

OCDA further believes that the disclosure of the responsive records would violate State Constitutional privacy rights of the individuals named within the records and that the records are protected under federal official information privilege.

While Plaintiff disagrees with the grounds for OCDA's aforementioned objections to Plaintiff's SDT, Plaintiff has agreed to stipulate to this protective order in the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.