Albert Johnson v. Estension Logistics, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 4, 2021
Docket5:20-cv-00118
StatusUnknown

This text of Albert Johnson v. Estension Logistics, LLC (Albert Johnson v. Estension Logistics, 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
Albert Johnson v. Estension Logistics, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 Michael Nourmand, Esq. (SBN 198439) James A. De Sario, Esq. 560) 2 THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard 3 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: 310) 553-3600 4 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, ALBERT JOHNSON, on behalf 6 of himself all others similarly situated 7 (Additional Counsel Listed on Following age) 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — EASTERN DIVISION 10 11 || ALBERT JOHNSON, RAUL - 5:20-cv- - - MARTINEZ, TERRANCE LOVETT, CASE NO.: 5:20-cv-00118-JAK-SP 12 || ROBERT PARSONS and JAVIER CUEVAS MAGANA, on behalf of 13 || themselves and all others similarly REVISED STIPULATED 4 situated, PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, oo 15 Complaint Filed: November 27, 2019 V. Trial Date: None 16 District Judge: Hon. John A. Kronstadt ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, a Magistrate Judge: Hon. Sheri Pym 17 || Delaware limited liability company: HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC., a 18 || Delaware corporation, HUB GROUP, INC., doing business in California as 19 | CALIFORNIA HUB GROUP; and 50 DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ]

1 || Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. (SBN 284605) Annaliz Loera, Esq. ( 334129) 2 || LEBE LAW, APLC 7778S. Alameda Street, Second Floor 3 || Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: ee) 444-1973 4 || Facsimile: (213) 457-3092 5 || Attorneys for Plaintiff, RAUL MARTINEZ, on behalf 6 || of himself all others similarly situated 7 Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228179) Max W. Gavron (State Bar No. 291697) 8 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 9 515S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Ange es, CA 90071 10 || (213) 488-6555 Telephone 213) 488-6554 facsimile | Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 || Terrance Lovett, Robert Parsons and Javier Cuevas Magana, on behalf of 13 || themselves all others similarly situated 4 Robert R. Roginson, Esq. (SBN 185286) 15 || Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. (SBN 259034) Carmen M. Aguado, Esd (SBN 291941) 16 | OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 17 || Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: or 239-9800 18 || Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 19 || Attorneys for Defendants HUB GROUP DEDICATED, LLC, 20 formerly known as ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC; and HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 2 Plaintiffs ALBERT JOHNSON, RAUL MARTINEZ, TERRANCE LOVETT, 3 || ROBERT PARSONS and JAVIER CUEVAS MAGANA (“Plaintiffs”) and 4 || defendants ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC. and 5 | HUB GROUP, INC., doing business in California as CALIFORNIA HUB GROUP 6 || (‘Defendants’) (collectively the “Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, 7 || hereby stipulate to: 8 1. A. PURPOSE AND LIMITS OF THIS ORDER 9 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 10 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 11 || and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 12 || Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 13 || following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 14 || not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 15 || protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 16 || information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 17 || legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 18 || that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 19 || information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 20 || followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 21 || the court to file material under seal. 22 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 23 This action involves pre-certification discovery, seeking among other things, 24 || the name, address and telephone number for putative class members (“Contact 25 || Information”) who were employed by Defendants during the relevant class period. 26 || The Parties have met and conferred regarding the use of a Belaire-West privacy opt- 27 || out process to obtain putative class member Contact Information; however, given the 28 || current January 23, 2022 deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Class Certification

1 || and the time needed to complete that process (1.e., mailing the notice to over 2,000 2 || truck drivers and providing them with at least a 20 day notice period to opt-out), as 3 || well as additional time being needed to contact these individuals and obtain 4 || declarations, the Belaire-West process would not provide Plaintiffs with enough time 5 || to gather the requested information prior to certification. 6 Therefore, instead of the opt-out process under Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. 7 || Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554 (2007), the Parties agreed to follow the process 8 || sanctioned in Davidson v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (9 Cir. 2020) 968 F.3d 9 || 955, 965, Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2018) 334 F.R.D. 275, 287, Thomas- 10 || Byass v. Michael Kors Stores (Cal.), Inc. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22 2015) and York v. 11 || Starbucks Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92274, *4-5, 2009 WL 3177605 (C.D. Cal. 12 || June 30, 2009). Specifically, since there is not sufficient time to allow for a Belaire- 13 || West notice process, the Parties agree as follows: 14 (1) Contact Information for the putative class is protected by the employees’ 15 || right to privacy, and it shall be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” as defined by Section 16 || 2.3 of the Stipulated Protective Order before being produced to Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 17 (2) At the outset of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s first contact with each employee, 18 || Plaintiffs’ Counsel will inform each employee that the employee has the right not to 19 || talk with Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 20 (3) Plaintiffs’ Counsel will also inform each employee that his or her refusal 21 || to speak with counsel will not prejudice his or her rights as a class member should the 22 || Court certify the class. 23 (4) Ifany employee elects not to talk to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Plaintiffs’ Counsel 24 || will terminate the contact and not contact him or her again unless required by Court 25 || Order. 26 (5) Plaintiffs’ Counsel will keep a list of all employees who make it known 27 || that they do not want to be contacted and preserve that list for the Court. 28 || /// ee

1 (6) The contact information will be used only for the purposes of this action, 2 || and it will not be disseminated to anyone who 1s not necessary to the prosecution of this 3 |] case. 4 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, facilitate the prompt 5 || resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect 6 || information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, ensure that the parties are 7 || permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 8 || conduct of trial, address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 9 || of justice, there is good cause for a a protective order in this matter. Furthermore, it is 10 || the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 11 || tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 12 || has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 13 || why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: This litigation, Albert Johnson, et al. v. Estenson Logistics, LLC, et 16 || al., Case No.: 5:20-cv-00118-JAK-SP. 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 18 || information or items under this Order.

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

Related

Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court
57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 197 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Albert Johnson v. Estension Logistics, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-johnson-v-estension-logistics-llc-cacd-2021.