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.

United States v. Port of Benton County

United States District Court, E.D. Washington

July 12, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., RANDOLPH PETERSON, individually and as relator; TRI-CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; as a Washington corporation and as relator; Plaintiffs,
v.
PORT OF BENTON COUNTY, a Washington State Municipal Entity; SCOTT KELLER, individually and as Executive Director of Port of Benton; ROBERT LARSON, individually and as Commissioner of Port of Benton; ROY KECK, individually and as Commissioner of Port of Benton; JANE HAGERTY, individually and as Commissioner of the Port of Benton; JOHN DOES 1-99, employees, officers, directors, agents of the Port of Benton; CITY OF RICHLAND, a Washington State Municipal entity; PETER ROGALSKY, individually and as Public Works Director of the City of Richland; and JOHN DOES 1-99, employees, officers, directors, agents of the City of Richland. Defendants.

          PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC, Whitny L. Norton NICHOLAS D. KOVARIK, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Rob J. Crichton ROB J. CRICHTON, HOLLY LYNCH, ERIC R. LALIBERTE, Attorneys for Port of Benton Defendants.

          CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY, PLLC, Emily D. Powell ANGELO J. CALFO, Attorneys for City of Richland and Peter Rogalsky.

          STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: COMPANY AND INDIVIDUAL TAX RETURNS

          HONORABLE THOMAS O. RICE JUDGE.

         Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows pursuant to FRCP 29(b) and move the Court for a Protective Order pursuant to FRCP 26(c).

         Defendants have requested the tax returns of Plaintiff Tri-City Railroad Company LLC and Plaintiff Randolph Peterson. It is anticipated that Plaintiffs may request the tax returns of one or more of the Defendants herein. Tax returns and related information may contain privileged, private, confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information, and the parties could be seriously prejudiced by the disclosure of such privileged, private, confidential, proprietary, or sensitive information to third parties in the above-captioned matter (the “Litigation”).

         THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE to the following terms and conditions, which shall apply to the Litigation.

         1. Purposes and Limitation.

         Disclosure and discovery activity in this Litigation may involve production of tax returns which may contain privileged, private, confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information for which special protection from public disclosure is warranted. All tax returns or related documents designated “Confidential” or “Attorney's Eyes Only” under this Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective Order”) shall be used solely for the purpose of prosecuting or defending this Litigation and for no other purpose.

         2. Definitions.

a. Confidential. “Confidential” means all tax returns and related documents conveyed during this Litigation and designated in good faith by the producing and designating party as “Confidential” as of the time of production or conveyance. Only those “Qualified Persons” as defined in paragraph 6 shall have access to such information unless otherwise provided by this Protective Order or other order of the Court.
b. Attorney's Eyes Only. “Attorney's Eyes Only” means all tax returns and related documents conveyed during this Litigation and designated in good faith by the producing party or designating party as “Attorney's Eyes Only” at the time of production.

         3. Designating Material for Protection.

         The party producing tax returns or related information that is not publicly available may designate as “Confidential” or “Attorney's Eyes Only” such information that it in good faith believes embodies privileged, private, confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information (“Confidential Information”).

         4. Method of Designation.

         The producing party may designate Confidential Information by stamping a document containing such Confidential Information with the legend “Confidential” or “Attorney's Eyes Only.” Where possible, the producing party will seek to produce non-confidential, redacted versions of confidential documents - so that portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which confidential protection is not warranted are available in non-protected form. With respect to depositions or other pre-trial testimony, the designation may be made by:

         (a) a statement on the record by counsel at the time of or immediately following the disclosure that such testimony shall be treated as Confidential Information; or

         (b) by written notice, sent by counsel, within five (5) business days after receiving a copy of the transcript of such testimony, that such testimony shall be treated as Confidential Information. In the event that the designation comes after a transcript has been disclosed to clients or third parties without such designations, the disclosing party shall use best efforts to ...


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.