Arturo Zarazua v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 7, 2024
Docket5:24-cv-01296
StatusUnknown

This text of Arturo Zarazua v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC (Arturo Zarazua v. Rocket Mortgage, 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
Arturo Zarazua v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTURO ZARAZUA and BEATRICE Case No. 5:24-cv-01296-MWF-SP ZARAZUA, [District Judge: Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald; 12 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Sheri Pym] Plaintiff, 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER RE 14 v. CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC; and 15 Complaint Filed: May 17, 2024 DOES 1-10 inclusive,

16 [Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith] Defendants. 17 18 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES (“Stipulation for Entry of 19 Protective Order re Confidential Documents”), and pursuant to the Court’s inherent and statutory 20 authority, including but not limited to the Court’s authority under the applicable Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure and the United States District Court, Central District of California Local Rules; 22 after due consideration of all of the relevant pleadings, papers, and records in this action; and upon 23 such other evidence or argument as was presented to the Court; Good Cause appearing therefor, 24 and in furtherance of the interests of justice, 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 27 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private 28 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 1 than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 2 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 3 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 4 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 5 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 6 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 This action is likely to involve private consumer financial information and confidential 8 business information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 9 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 10 materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 11 information, information regarding confidential business practices, trade secrets, or other 12 confidential or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 13 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 14 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 15 common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 16 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 17 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 18 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 19 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 20 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 21 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 22 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 23 of the public 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 Stipulated 26 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 27 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 28 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that 1 the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 2 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 3 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 4 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 5 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific 6 showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 7 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. 8 The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 9 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 10 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 11 cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 12 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly 13 tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 14 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought 15 to be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 16 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent 17 evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 18 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 19 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 20 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 21 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 22 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 23 feasible. 24 4. DEFINITIONS 25 4.1 Action: the current action of Zarazua, et. al. v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 26 Case No. 5:24-cv-01296-MWF-SP, pending in this Court. 27 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 28 information or items under this Order. 1 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 2 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 3 of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 4 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 5 staff). 6 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 7 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 9 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 10 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 11 responses to discovery. 12 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 13 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 14 consultant in this Action. 15 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 16 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 17 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal 18 entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Related

United States v. Smith
14 F.3d 662 (First Circuit, 1994)
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)
Arturo Zarazua v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arturo-zarazua-v-rocket-mortgage-llc-cacd-2024.