Ana Rogel v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 23, 2025
Docket8:25-cv-01936
StatusUnknown

This text of Ana Rogel v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC (Ana Rogel v. Sprouts Farmers Market, 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
Ana Rogel v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANA ROGEL, ) Case No. 8:25-cv-01936-DOC-JDE ) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 ) ) 13 v. ) ) 14 ) SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, ) 15 LLC; and DOES 1 TO 100, inclusive, ) ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 18 Based on the Parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 9-1) and for good cause shown, the 19 Court finds and orders as follows. 20 1. 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 pursuing this litigation may be 24 warranted. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Stipulated Protective Order. 25 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 26 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 27 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 28 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 3 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 4 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 5 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 6 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 7 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 8 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 9 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights 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, 12 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 13 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 14 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 15 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 16 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 17 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 18 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 19 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 20 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 21 22 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 23 record of this case. 24 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 26 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 27 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 28 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 1 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 2 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 3 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 4 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 5 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 6 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 7 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 8 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 9 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 10 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 11 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 12 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 13 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 14 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 15 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 16 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 17 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 18 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 19 under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 20 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 21 22 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 23 must be provided by declaration. 24 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 25 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 26 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 27 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 28 1 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 2 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 4. DEFINITIONS 4 4.1 Action: Case No. 8:25-cv-01936-DOC-JDE 5 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 8 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 9 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 10 the Good Cause Statement. 11 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 their support staff). 13 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 17 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 19 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 20 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 22 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 23 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 25 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 26 outside counsel. 27 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 28 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 1 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 2 party to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have 3 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 4 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 5 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 7 support staffs). 8 4.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 9 Discovery Material in this Action.

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)
Ana Rogel v. Sprouts Farmers Market, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ana-rogel-v-sprouts-farmers-market-llc-cacd-2025.