Alex Bear v. Republic Bancorp, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 12, 2024
Docket8:24-cv-00913
StatusUnknown

This text of Alex Bear v. Republic Bancorp, Inc. (Alex Bear v. Republic Bancorp, Inc.) 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
Alex Bear v. Republic Bancorp, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 ALEX BEAR, Case No.: 8:24-cv-00913 SB (RAOx) 11 Plaintiff,

12 v. DISCOVERY MATTER

13 REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC., a Kentucky corporation, REPUBLIC STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 BANK & TRUST COMPANY, an ORDER1 unknown entity, CBANK, an Ohio 15 corporation, COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL FINANCE, INC., an Complaint Filed: March 15, 2023 16 Ohio corporation, SCOTT Trial Date: None set HAWKINS, an individual, and DOES 17 1 through 10, inclusive, 18 Defendant.

19 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ 5 representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential 6 records (specifically, that Defendant Republic Bank & Trust Company is a Bank, 7 Plaintiff’s allegations involve his job performance, and the production of records may 8 identify clients, and/or other third parties), and in order to expedite the flow of 9 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 10 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 11 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 12 material in connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at 13 the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 14 information is justified in this matter. The parties shall not designate any 15 information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief that such 16 information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 17 and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be part of the 18 public record of this case. 19 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 20 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 21 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 22 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 23 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 24 to file material under seal. 25 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 26 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 27 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 1 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 2 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 3 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 4 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 5 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 6 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 7 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 8 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 9 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 11 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 12 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 13 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 14 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 15 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 16 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 17 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 18 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 19 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 20 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 21 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 22 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 23 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 24 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 25 2. DEFINITIONS 26 2.1 Action: Bear v. Republic Bank & Trust Company, et al. Central District 27 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 1 of information or items under this Order. 2 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 3 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 4 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 5 the Good Cause Statement. 6 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 7 their support staff). 8 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 9 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 10 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 11 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 12 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 13 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 14 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 15 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 16 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 17 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 18 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 19 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 20 counsel. 21 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 22 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 23 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 24 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 25 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 26 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 27 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 1 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 2 support staffs). 3 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 4 Discovery Material in this Action. 5 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 6 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 7 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 8 and their employees and subcontractors.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alex Bear v. Republic Bancorp, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alex-bear-v-republic-bancorp-inc-cacd-2024.