Bosco Seungchul Baek v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 1, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-01186
StatusUnknown

This text of Bosco Seungchul Baek v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (Bosco Seungchul Baek v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association) 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
Bosco Seungchul Baek v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01186-FMO-RAO Document 16 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:128

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 WESTERN DIVISION 6

7 BOSCO SEUNGCHUL BAEK, 8 Case No. (2:22−cv−01186 FMO Plaintiff, (RAO) 9 10 v. (Removed from Los Angeles County

11 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Superior Court Case No. 12 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 21STCV44466)

13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Defendant. ORDER1 14 District Judge: Fernando M. 15 Olguin 16 Courtroom: 6D

17 Magistrate Judge: Rozella A. Oliver 18 Courtroom: 590

19 Complaint Filed: December 6, 2021 20 Trial Date: Not Set

23 24

26 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. Case 2:22-cv-01186-FMO-RAO Document 16 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:129

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 12 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 This action is likely to involve, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 15 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 17 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, or other commercial information (including 19 information implicating privacy rights), information otherwise generally unavailable 20 to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure 21 under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 22 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 23 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 24 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 25 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 26 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 27 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 28 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 2 Case 2:22-cv-01186-FMO-RAO Document 16 Filed 07/01/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:130

1 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 2 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 3 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 4 5 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 6 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 8 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 9 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 10 to file material under seal. 11 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 12 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 13 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 14 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 15 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 16 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 17 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 18 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 19 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 20 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 21 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 22 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 23 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 25 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 26 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 27 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 28 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 3 Case 2:22-cv-01186-FMO-RAO Document 16 Filed 07/01/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:131

1 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 2 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 3 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 4 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 6 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 7 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 8 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 9 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 10 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 15 designation of information or items under this Order. 16 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 21 their support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 23 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 24 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 26 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 27 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 28 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 4 Case 2:22-cv-01186-FMO-RAO Document 16 Filed 07/01/22 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:132

1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 3 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to 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)
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)
Bosco Seungchul Baek v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosco-seungchul-baek-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-national-association-cacd-2022.