Brandon Cameron v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 22, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-02274
StatusUnknown

This text of Brandon Cameron v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Brandon Cameron v. Experian Information Solutions, 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
Brandon Cameron v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02274-FMO-GJS Document 19 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:89

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON CAMERON 11 Case No. 2:22-cv-02274-FMO-GJS Plaintiff, 12 v. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER1 EXPERIAN INFORMATION 14 SOLUTIONS, INC.

15 Defendant.

17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 26 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. Case 2:22-cv-02274-FMO-GJS Document 19 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:90

1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) requires a showing of good cause for the entry of a 5 protective order by the Court to prevent public disclosure of material such as trade 6 secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. 7 Documents and information have been and may be sought, produced or exhibited by 8 and among the parties to this action relating to trade secrets, confidential research, 9 development, technology or other proprietary information belonging to Defendant 10 (including, but not limited to, codes, computer systems, software and processes used 11 for credit reporting, and information derived therefrom), and/or personal income, 12 credit and other confidential information of Plaintiff. An order of this Court is 13 necessary to protect the parties from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 14 undue burden or expense related to the disclosure of confidential, proprietary or 15 private information of the parties for purposes other than prosecuting and defending 16 this litigation. This Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or 17 responses to discovery, and the protection it gives from public disclosure and use 18 extends only to the specific documents and material entitled to confidential 19 treatment under applicable legal principles. 20 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 21 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 22 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 23 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 24 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 25 to file material under seal. 26 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 27 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-02274-FMO-GJS Document 19 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:91

1 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 2 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 3 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 4 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 5 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 6 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 7 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 8 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 9 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 10 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 11 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 12 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 13 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 14 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 15 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 16 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 17 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 18 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 19 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 20 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 21 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 22 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 23 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 24 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 25 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 26 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 27 28 3 Case 2:22-cv-02274-FMO-GJS Document 19 Filed 08/22/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:92

1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 3 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 4 designation of information or items under this Order. 5 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 6 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 7 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 8 the Good Cause Statement. 9 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 10 their support staff). 11 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 12 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 15 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 16 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 17 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 18 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 19 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 20 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 21 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 22 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 23 counsel. 24 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 25 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 26 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 27 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 28 4 Case 2:22-cv-02274-FMO-GJS Document 19 Filed 08/22/22 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:93

1 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 2 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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)
Brandon Cameron v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-cameron-v-experian-information-solutions-inc-cacd-2022.