Arlin Sahnazoglu v. Midland Funding, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 18, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-02805
StatusUnknown

This text of Arlin Sahnazoglu v. Midland Funding, LLC (Arlin Sahnazoglu v. Midland Funding, 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
Arlin Sahnazoglu v. Midland Funding, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02805-MCS-PD Document 29 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:158

1 BLANK ROME LLP Cheryl S. Chang (SBN 237098) 2 Cheryl.Chang@BlankRome.com Jessica A. McElroy (SBN 299919) 3 Jessica.McElroy@BlankRome.com 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 424.239.3400 5 Facsimile: 424.239.3434

6 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

ARLIN SAHNAZOGLU. Case No.: 2:22-cv-02805-MCS-PD 10 Plaintiff. 11 ORDER v. 12 GRANTING STIPULATED MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC and PROTECTIVE ORDER DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 13

Defendants. 14

154163.01225/126154953v.2 1 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:22-cv-02805-MCS-PD Document 29 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:159

1 On January 13, 2023, the Parties filed a Stipulated Protective Order. The Court, having 2 considered the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order and finding good cause, hereby GRANTS 3 the same as set forth below. 4 I. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 5 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 6 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 7 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby

8 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 9 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses 10 to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 11 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 12 principles. 13 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 This action is likely to involve of confidential, proprietary, or private information, such as 15 Defendant’s policies and procedures, for which special protection from public disclosure and 16 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 17 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 18 financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 19 research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 20 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 21 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, 22 case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 23 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 24

154163.01225/126154953v.2 2 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:22-cv-02805-MCS-PD Document 29 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:160

1 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 2 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 3 their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 4 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 5 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 6 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 7 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case.

8 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 10 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 11 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 12 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 13 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 14 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown 15 to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 16 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), 17 Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 18 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 19 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 20 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 21 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 22 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 23 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 24

154163.01225/126154953v.2 3 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:22-cv-02805-MCS-PD Document 29 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:161

1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 2 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 3 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 4 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or 5 thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, 6 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 7 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the

8 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 9 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 10 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 11 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, 12 or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to 13 file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 14 feasible. 15 II. DEFINITIONS 16 A. Action: The Case entitled Arlin Sahnazoglu v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al., 17 pending in the United Stated District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 2:22- 18 cv-02805-MCS-PD. 19 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 20 information or items under this Order. 21 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is 22 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 24

154163.01225/126154953v.2 4 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:22-cv-02805-MCS-PD Document 29 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:162

1 D. Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“Confidential-AEO”): Any information 2 which belongs to a Designating Party who believes in good faith that the disclosure of such 3 information to another Party or non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious financial or 4 other injury that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arlin Sahnazoglu v. Midland Funding, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arlin-sahnazoglu-v-midland-funding-llc-cacd-2023.