Garcia et al v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas et al, No. 2:2021cv00169 - Document 31 (S.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER grants in part 20 Opposed MOTION for Protective Order (Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock) Parties notified.(amireles, 2)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garcia et al v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas et al Doc. 31 Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 31 Filed on 05/03/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § § CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, et § al., § § Defendants. § May 03, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk JUSTIN T. GARCIA, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00169 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On February 14, 2022, Defendant City of Corpus Christi filed an opposed motion for protective order and confidentiality agreement, along with a proposed order. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21.) Plaintiffs responded in a filing on March 3, 2022. (Doc. No. 22.) The motion has been referred to the undersigned for review and action. The Court issued an order setting a status conference and directed the parties to consult regarding the language for any protective order. (Doc. No. 29.) The hearing occurred on May 2, 2022. The Court heard the parties’ positions regarding the existence of any privilege or protection for information collected and maintained pursuant to section 143.089(g) of the Texas Local Government Code. In accordance with the Court’s instructions, the parties conferred prior to the hearing and coordinated on a proposed confidentiality and protective order, which was also discussed at the hearing. That jointly proposed confidentiality and protective order is now filed as part of the docket. (Doc. No. 30.) Discussion at the hearing addressed, among other 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00169 Document 31 Filed on 05/03/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 2 things, the use during depositions of information covered by any protective order, the possibility of overcoming confidentiality concerns through agreed-upon redactions, and the mechanism for challenging designation of confidential material or proposed use of such material in this litigation. After consideration of the parties’ written submissions and the discussion at the hearing, and for the reasons stated during the hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant City of Corpus Christi’s motion (Doc. No. 20). The Court is satisfied that the language crafted by the parties in their joint proposed order will adequately address the parties’ needs during the discovery phase of this litigation. The Court expresses no opinion on the admissibility of any information or evidence. Any such questions will be addressed by the district court if they arise. The Court adopts the draft order submitted by the parties, and is issuing a signed version as a standalone docket entry. ORDERED on May 3, 2022. _____________________________ MITCHEL NEUROCK United States Magistrate Judge 2/2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
