ORDER RE: STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

ALKA SAGAR, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Donovan Sellan ("Plaintiff") and Defendants City of Hermosa Beach ("City"), Hermosa Beach Police Department ("Department"), Tom Bakaly ("Bakaly") and Sharon Papa ("Papa") (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation:

WHEREAS, this case involves, among other things, allegations that Plaintiff was denied promotions and special assignments and/or otherwise experienced retaliation for filing various grievances and complaints, including a complaint alleging misconduct by another Hermosa Beach Police Officer;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Government Code § 3300 et seq., and California Labor Code § 1102.5, and Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has served Defendants with at least 455 demands for production of documents under the compulsion of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

WHEREAS, among other things, Plaintiff has requested copies of all emails he sent or received from January 1, 2012 to the present (and in some cases, over a longer time period), as well as copies of emails between the following current or former City employees concerning Plaintiff's employment and/or various claims: Sharon Papa, Tom Bakaly, Milton McKinnon, Thomas Thompson, Landon Phillips, Chris Alkadis, Garth Gaines, Dorothy Scheid, Mik Gaglia, Gerritt Poelstra, Monica Bagnara, and Sharon Stine;

WHEREAS, the City contends that it has located approximately 30,000 emails that have been or will be searched through for responsiveness to Plaintiffs' document demands, and Defendant further contends that some emails, including emails sent to or from Plaintiff's own City email account, contain private, confidential or otherwise privileged information (e.g., personnel information concerning third party peace officers; information concerning crime victims and alleged criminal subjects, including names, addresses, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, etc.; information concerning active or otherwise confidential criminal and/or administrative investigations; communications with City attorneys or communications with elected officials that may be privileged under the attorney-client privileged, the Ralph M. Brown Act or other applicable law);

WHEREAS, the City contends that because of the nature of Plaintiff's job some of the emails in his City email account contain private, confidential or otherwise privileged information (e.g., information concerning criminal or administrative investigations, information concerning crime victims and suspects communications with City attorneys, etc.) that Defendants contend cannot and should not be disclosed to third parties;

WHEREAS, the City contends that its review of the emails requested by Plaintiff in this litigation for possible redaction, including emails sent to or from Plaintiff's City email account, has been time consuming, expensive, overly burdensome and oppressive;

WHEREAS, in order to expedite production of documents to Plaintiff, the City will agree to produce to Plaintiff copies of all responsive emails, sent to Plaintiff or received from Plaintiff at his City email address (i.e., dsellan@hermosapolice.org), from any person for the period of January 1, 2012 through March 16, 2017, including but not limited to Donavan Sellan (i.e., donovan.sellan@laimpact.com, donavan.m.sellan@usdoj.gov, and dsellan@yahoo.com), Sharon Papa, Tom Bakaly, Milton McKinnon, Thomas Thompson, Landon Phillips, Chris Alkadis, Garth Gaines, Dorothy Scheid, Mik Gaglia, Gerritt Poelstra, Monica Bagnara, Ashley Koger and/or Sharon Stine, if any exist, without redaction (other than attorney-client communications) provided that an appropriate protective order issues which addresses Defendants' concerns about private, confidential and otherwise privileged information that may be contained in emails contained in Plaintiff's City email account; and

WHEREAS, Defendants and Plaintiff contend that good cause exists for the Court to grant a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the terms described below.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

1. Defendant will produce copies of all emails sent to or from Plaintiff's City email address (i.e., dsellan@hermosapolice.org) from January 1, 2012 through March 16, 2017, without review or redaction by Defendants' counsel within 2 business days of the Court notifying the Parties that it has granted this order;

2. Plaintiff, his counsel and/or representatives may only use the emails produced by the City from Plaintiff's City email account in this litigation, and before using any such email in this litigation in a public setting, e.g., using the email as an exhibit to a deposition, motion or discovery request or at trial, Plaintiff's counsel must review the email and redact all private, confidential, or otherwise privileged information (e.g., personnel information concerning third party peace officers; information concerning crime victims and alleged criminal subjects, including names, addresses, social security numbers, driver's license numbers; information concerning active or otherwise confidential criminal and administrative investigations; communications with City attorneys; or communications with elected officials that may be privileged under the Ralph M. Brown Act). If Plaintiff's counsel is unsure whether redaction is required, he must seek clarification from Defendant's counsel or the Court. In the event that Defendants' counsel believes Plaintiff has failed to properly redact an email produced under this protective order, Defendants counsel shall either notify Plaintiff's counsel, at which time Plaintiff's counsel must either redact the document properly or agree to the tentative use pending the Court review of Defendants' concern, or seek relief from the Court.

3. Disclosure of emails between Plaintiff and any attorney working for the City shall not constitute a waiver of the City's attorney-client privilege, even if Plaintiff uses the document publicly without properly redacting privileged information.

* All other signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing's content and have authorized the filing.

ORDER

For good cause shown, the foregoing Stipulation shall be the Order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.