Aguiar v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 3, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02403·Unknown

Opinion

STEVEN AGUIAR, Case No. 2:24-cv-02403-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., (ECF No. 32) Defendants.

The parties filed a joint motion for entry of protective order1 on December 13, 2024 (ECF No. 29), which the Court declined to approve because it did not comply with Local Rule 141.1(c) (ECF No. 31). The parties filed the second joint motion for entry of protective order below (ECF No. 32), which the Court has reviewed and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See L.R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the amended protective order, subject to the following clarification. The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus,

1 Because the parties agreed to the protective order, the Court reviewed this as a stipulated protective order. the Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. Dated: January 3, 2025 OC iG □ CHI S00 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5, agui.2403.24 1]

Jenna Dakroub, CA # 350170 CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM 16130 Ventura Blvd., Suite 300 Encino, CA 91436 T: (602) 807-1525 F: (480) 613-7733 E: jdakroub@consumerjustice.com Attorney for Plaintiff Steven Aguiar IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Steven Aguiar, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02403-TLN-CSK Plaintiff, District Judge Troy L. Nunley

v.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, Trans Union LLC, Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Defendants. The parties to this action have agreed to the terms of this Protective Order; accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1 Scope. (a) This Order shall govern the use, handling, and disclosure of all documents, testimony or information produced or given in this action which are designated to be subject to this Order in accordance with the terms hereof. (b) This Order has been agreed to by the parties to facilitate discovery and the production of relevant evidence in this action. Neither the entry of this Order, nor the designation of any information, document, or the like as “Confidential,” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” nor the failure to make such designation, shall constitute evidence with respect to any issue in this action. (c) Nothing herein shall affect or restrict the rights of any party with respect to its own documents or to the information obtained or developed independently of documents, transcripts and materials afforded confidential treatment pursuant to this Order. (d) The Court retains the right to allow disclosure of any subject covered by this stipulation or to modify this Order at any time in the interest of justice 2 Definitions. As used in this protective order: (a) “attorney” means an attorney who has appeared in this action or is an employee of any name firm and actively assisting an attorney of record in the matter; (b) “confidential” means a document reasonably designated as confidential or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under this protective order; (c) “destroy” means to shred or delete information received. (d) “document” means information disclosed or produced in discovery, including at a deposition; (e) “notice” or “notify” means written notice, including email; (f) “party” means a party to this action; and (g) “protected document” means a document protected by a privilege or the work- product doctrine. 3 Designating a Document or Deposition as Confidential. (a) In making a confidentiality designation, the designating party represents that it has a good-faith basis for contending that the document is “confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” as defined by this order. (b) No party shall designate any document or portion of any document as confidential that he/she has not carefully reviewed; (c) The types of information eligible for protection under this Order. The parties expect to exchange and designate the following information as confidential: (1) Proprietary corporate trade secrets of the CRA Defendants regarding their credit file databases; (2) policies and procedures regarding the receiving, maintaining dispute investigations, and reporting of confidential credit information; (3) confidential research, development, technology, or other proprietary information about credit reporting belonging to the Defendants; (4) confidential partner/vendor agreements between the Defendants and third parties; (5) confidential information about Plaintiff furnished to the CRA Defendants by Defendant NewRez and maintained by NewRez; (6) NewRez’s policies and procedures regarding forbearance, loan modifications, and credit reporting; (7) personal, income, medical, credit, or other confidential information belonging to Plaintiff. (d) The corporate Defendants have a particularized interest in maintaining their trade secret and proprietary information as described in 3(c) for competitive and business reasons. Plaintiff has a good cause interest in maintaining his privacy, personal identifying information, such as social security number, address, and date of birth, as well as his income and other private personal information. The parties believe it is appropriate for the need for confidential protections to be addressed by court order so that the Court will be in position to enforce the agreement between the five parties. (e) A party or non-party disclosing or producing a document may designate it as confidential if the party or non-party reasonably contends that it contains confidential or proprietary information. If a party or non-party disclosing or producing a document believes in good faith that, despite the provisions of this Protective Order, there is a substantial risk of identifiable harm to the producing party if particular documents it designates as “Confidential” are disclosed to all other parties or non-parties to this action, the producing [arty may designate those particular documents as “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” (f) A party or non-party may designate a document as confidential by conspicuously marking each page with the word “confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Deposition testimony may be designated as confidential “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only”: (1) after the deposition, by notifying the parties and those who were present at the deposition within 21 days after the deposition transcript becomes available, unless otherwise agreed. (g) If a witness is expected to testify as to confidential or proprietary information, a party or non-party may request that the witness’s deposition be taken in the presence of only those persons entitled to receive confidential documents. 4 Who May Receive a Confidential Document. (a) “All documents, transcripts, or other materials subject to this Order, and all information derived therefrom (including, but not limited to, all testimony given in a deposition, declaration, or otherwise, that refers, reflects, or otherwise discusses any information designated “confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” hereunder), shall not be used, directly or indirectly, by any person or party for any business, commercial, or competitive purposes or for any purpose whatsoever other than solely for the preparation and trial of this action in accordance with the provisions of this Order.” (b) All persons receiving any or all documents produced pursuant to this Order shall be advised of their confidential nature. All persons to whom confidential information and/or documents are disclosed are hereby enjoined from disclosing same to any person except as provided herein, and a

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

Aguiar v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Aguiar v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Aguiar v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.