Abby Barz v. Corso Commerce, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 8, 2025
Docket8:25-cv-00918
StatusUnknown

This text of Abby Barz v. Corso Commerce, LLC (Abby Barz v. Corso Commerce, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abby Barz v. Corso Commerce, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 Abby Barz Case No.: SACV 25-00918-FWS (DFMx) 10 Plaintiff(s),

11 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1

12 Corso Commerce, LLC et al.

13 Defendant(s). 14 15

16 1. INTRODUCTION 17 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production 18 of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 19 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 20 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated 21 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 22 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 23 under the applicable legal principles. 24 1.2 Good Cause Statement. In this action, Plaintiff Abby Barz ("Plaintiff") alleges that 25 Defendants Corso Commerce, LLC and BrüMate, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") engaged in 26

27 1 This stipulated protective order is modeled on the Central District of California’s standard form and is consistent 1 deceptive business practices by automatically adding shipping protection fees to online consumer purchases. Plaintiff contends that these fees are deceptively included in customers' shopping carts 2 through pre-selected boxes that are difficult to notice or opt out of, are misleadingly described as 3 providing environmental or shipping protection benefits. Defendants dispute these allegations and 4 maintain that the fees are optional, valuable add-ons that are clearly and conspicuously disclosed 5 to customers during checkout, with a large percentage of customers electing to opt out. 6 Defendants further assert that the shipping protection services provide significant value and 7 unconditional protection against loss, damage, or non-delivery (including theft / porch piracy), which protection is generally not available elsewhere. As a result, Defendants contend that neither 8 Plaintiff nor any putative class members were deceived or harmed, and that individualized issues 9 regarding each customer's experience and understanding will predominate, thereby precluding 10 class certification. 11 The facts of this case rest on confidential business and financial information and records, 12 including but not limited to sales and revenue data associated with the shipping protection 13 services, associated costs and expenses, customer opt-out rates, customer service data and feedback, customer claims data, and transactional data regarding consumer purchases. Indeed, the 14 parties have already exchanged discovery requests seeking these types of confidential documents. 15 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of such information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 16 disputes over the confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 17 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable and 18 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 19 handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 20 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing will be so designated absent a good 21 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good 22 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 23 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further 24 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 25 entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 26 the court to file material under seal. 27 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 1 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 2 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 3 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 4 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 5 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 6 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 7 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without the submission of 8 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 9 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 11 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 12 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 13 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, 14 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 15 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 16 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 17 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 18 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 19 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 20 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 21 feasible. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: Barz. V. Corso Commerce, LLC et al., No. SACV 25-00918-FWS 24 (DFMx). 25 (a) State Court action: Barz. V. Corso Commerce, LLC et al., No. 30-2025-01460739- 26 CU-BT-CXC. 27 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of 2 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: 4 CONFIDENTIAL information that, despite the provisions of this Protective Order, poses a 5 substantial risk of identifiable harm to the Producing Party if disclosed to all other parties or non- 6 parties to this action. 7 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Boakai v. Gonzales
447 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2006)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abby Barz v. Corso Commerce, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abby-barz-v-corso-commerce-llc-cacd-2025.