Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 25, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-05591
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 STEPHANIE FORMAN, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 195757 ERIC J. PALMER, ESQ.; STATE BAR NO.: 231207 2 THARPE & HOWELL, LLP 3 15250 Ventura Blvd., Ninth Floor Sherman Oaks, California 91403 4 (818) 205-9955; (818) 205-9944 fax E-Mail: sforman@tharpe-howell.com 5 E-Mail: epalmer@tharpe-howell.com

6 Attorneys for Defendant, WALMART INC. 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ANDREA LINDER, Case No. 2:25-cv-05591 [Los Angeles County Superior Court Case 12 Plaintiff, No. 25LBCV01056]

13 v. [Assigned to District Judge Maame Ewusi- Mensah Frimpong and Magistrate Judge 14 WALMART, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Stephanie S. Christensen] inclusive, 15 Defendants. [DISCOVERY MATTER] 16 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 17

18 Complaint Filed: March 28, 2025 Trial Date: September 14, 2026 19 1. INTRODUCTION 20 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 21 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 22 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 23 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 24 petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 25 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen’s Procedures as of 28 1 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 2 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 3 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 4 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(c)(1) states in pertinent part, that the 6 Court, upon a showing of good cause may “issue an order to protect a party from 7 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 26(c)(1). In the instant matter, Defendant Walmart Inc.’s Confidential Documents 9 contain proprietary and confidential trade secret information relating to Defendant’s 10 business practices, policies and procedures, its safety protocol, and its video 11 surveillance system. Defendant Walmart Inc., (“Defendant” or “Walmart”) derives 12 independent economic value from maintaining the confidentiality of the policies and 13 procedures set forth in these Confidential Documents. 14 Defendant is a leading national retailer with its first store opening in 1962. The 15 retail industry is very competitive. As a result of years of investing time and money 16 in research and investigation, Defendant developed the policies contained in the 17 Confidential Documents for the purposes of maintaining the security of its facilities, 18 providing quality customer service, and ensuring the safety of its employees, 19 customers, and other invitees. These policies and procedures, as memorialized in the 20 Confidential Documents, were created and generated by Walmart for Walmart, and 21 are used for the purposes of maintaining safety at its stores and creating efficient and 22 organized work environments for its employees. As a result, Defendant is able to 23 minimize the waste of any resources, which is a key factor in generating profitability 24 for its business. 25 Defendant derives economic value from maintaining the secrecy of its Confidential 26 Documents. If disclosed to the public, the trade secret information contained in 27 Defendant’s Confidential Documents would reveal Defendant’s internal operations 28 and could potentially be used by competitors as a means to compete for its customers, 1 interfere with its business plans and thereby gain unfair business advantages. If 2 Defendant’s safety protocol were revealed to the general public, it would hinder 3 Defendant’s ability to effectively resolve and minimize liability claims, and its goal of 4 protecting its customers and employees from theft and other crimes. Unrestricted or 5 unprotected disclosure of such information would result in prejudice or harm to 6 Defendant by revealing Walmart’s competitive confidential information, which has 7 been developed at the expense of Walmart and which represents valuable tangible and 8 intangible assets. Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that there is good cause 9 for the entry of this Protective Order. 10 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further 11 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 12 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets 13 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 14 a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 16 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 17 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 18 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd 19 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 20 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 21 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 22 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 23 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 24 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 25 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 26 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 27 protectable—constitute good cause. 28 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 1 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 2 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 3 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 4 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 5 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 6 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 7 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 8 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 9 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 10 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 11 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 12 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 13 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 14 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 15 2. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Action: Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive. Case 17 No. 2:35-CV-05591. 18 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 19 of information or items under this Order.

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)
Andrea Linder v. Walmart, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrea-linder-v-walmart-inc-cacd-2025.