Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 25, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-05591·Unknown

Opinion

STEPHANIE FORMAN, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 195757 ERIC J. PALMER, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 231207 THARPE & HOWELL, LLP 15250 Ventura Blvd., Ninth Floor Sherman Oaks, California 91403 (818) 205-9955; (818) 205-9944 fax E-Mail: sforman@tharpe-howell.com E-Mail: epalmer@tharpe-howell.com

Attorneys for Defendant, WALMART INC.

ANDREA LINDER, Case No. 2:25-cv-05591 [Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Plaintiff, No. 25LBCV01056]

v. [Assigned to District Judge Maame Ewusi- Mensah Frimpong and Magistrate Judge WALMART, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Stephanie S. Christensen] inclusive, Defendants. [DISCOVERY MATTER] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1

Complaint Filed: March 28, 2025 Trial Date: September 14, 2026 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen’s Procedures as of responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(c)(1) states in pertinent part, that the Court, upon a showing of good cause may “issue an order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). In the instant matter, Defendant Walmart Inc.’s Confidential Documents contain proprietary and confidential trade secret information relating to Defendant’s business practices, policies and procedures, its safety protocol, and its video surveillance system. Defendant Walmart Inc., (“Defendant” or “Walmart”) derives independent economic value from maintaining the confidentiality of the policies and procedures set forth in these Confidential Documents. Defendant is a leading national retailer with its first store opening in 1962. The retail industry is very competitive. As a result of years of investing time and money in research and investigation, Defendant developed the policies contained in the Confidential Documents for the purposes of maintaining the security of its facilities, providing quality customer service, and ensuring the safety of its employees, customers, and other invitees. These policies and procedures, as memorialized in the Confidential Documents, were created and generated by Walmart for Walmart, and are used for the purposes of maintaining safety at its stores and creating efficient and organized work environments for its employees. As a result, Defendant is able to minimize the waste of any resources, which is a key factor in generating profitability for its business. Defendant derives economic value from maintaining the secrecy of its Confidential Documents. If disclosed to the public, the trade secret information contained in Defendant’s Confidential Documents would reveal Defendant’s internal operations and could potentially be used by competitors as a means to compete for its customers, interfere with its business plans and thereby gain unfair business advantages. If Defendant’s safety protocol were revealed to the general public, it would hinder Defendant’s ability to effectively resolve and minimize liability claims, and its goal of protecting its customers and employees from theft and other crimes. Unrestricted or unprotected disclosure of such information would result in prejudice or harm to Defendant by revealing Walmart’s competitive confidential information, which has been developed at the expense of Walmart and which represents valuable tangible and intangible assets. Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that there is good cause for the entry of this Protective Order. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 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 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive. Case No. 2:35-CV-05591. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures

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

Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc. (Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)