Alex Lopez and Travell Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 5, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-07808
StatusUnknown

This text of Alex Lopez and Travell Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive (Alex Lopez and Travell Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive) 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 Lopez and Travell Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 ALEX LOPEZ and TRAVELL CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-07808-FWS (JDEx) 12 WOODS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13

14 Plaintiffs,

15 vs. Filed (state court): March 19, 2025 16 Removed: August 14, 2025 SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, 17 INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Based on the Parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 19) and for good cause shown, the Court 21 finds and orders as follows. 22 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 24 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 25 for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. This Order does not 26 confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery. The protection it 27 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 1 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 3 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 4 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 5 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 6 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business 7 or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 8 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information 9 implicating privacy rights of third parties), personal identifying information of third 10 parties, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 11 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 12 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 13 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 14 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 15 the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 16 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 17 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 18 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 19 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 20 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 21 not be part of the public record of this case. 22 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 23 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 24 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 25 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 26 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 27 under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 1 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 2 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 3 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 4 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and 5 a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support 6 and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 7 to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 8 CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY does 9 not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 10 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 11 protectable—constitute good cause. 12 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 13 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 14 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 15 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 16 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 17 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 18 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 19 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 20 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 21 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can 22 be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, 23 privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 24 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 25 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 26 4. DEFINITIONS 27 4.1 Action: Lopez et al. v. Suzuki Motor of Am., Inc. et al., Case No.: 2:25-cv- 07808-FWS (JDEx). 1 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 2 information or items under this Order. 3 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (documents, tangible 4 things, including written discovery responses, deposition testimony, all other information 5 that may be disclosed, as well as compilations or excerpts of such materials, regardless of 6 how such information or materials are generated, stored or maintained), that qualify for 7 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 8 Good Cause Statement. 9 4.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” Information or 10 Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 11 things that are Confidential but require further limited access for the use in this Action 12 because the Designating Party has reasonable grounds to believe the information or items 13 would, if known to any officer, director, employee, or agent of a Party, a Non-Party, or the 14 public, lead to significant or irreparable harm or injury to the reputation and/or business of 15 the Designating Party or materially impair the legitimate competitive interests of the 16 Designating Party, which cannot be avoided by less restrictive means and include, but are 17 not limited to, research, development, design, testing, financial, or commercial 18 information. 19 4.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 20 support staff). 21 4.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 22 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 23 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.” 24 4.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 25 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 26 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 27 disclosures or responses to discovery.

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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alex Lopez and Travell Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alex-lopez-and-travell-woods-on-behalf-of-themselves-and-all-others-cacd-2025.