Brian Klein v. Shift5, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 21, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02305
StatusUnknown

This text of Brian Klein v. Shift5, Inc. (Brian Klein v. Shift5, 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
Brian Klein v. Shift5, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Majed Dakak (SBN 271875) mdakak@kbslaw.com 2 Wesley Sweger (SBN 352403) 3 wsweger@kbslaw.com Eda Harotounian (SBN 340963) 4 eharotounian@kbslaw.com 5 KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 400 6 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 7 Tel.: (310) 307-4555 | Fax: (310) 307-4570 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 BRIAN KLEIN 10 Cynthia J. Emry (SBN 1611763) cynthia.emry@jacksonlewis.com 11 Orlando J. Arellano (SBN 234074) 12 orlando.arellano@jacksonlewis.com JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 13 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2800 14 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel.: (213) 689-0404 | Fax: (213) 689-0430 15 16 Attorneys for Defendant SHIFT5, INC. 17

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 BRIAN KLEIN, an individual; Case No. 2:25-cv-02305-CV (RAOx) 21 22 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 23

24 v. Complaint Filed: February 10, 2025 25 Removal Filed: March 14, 2025 26 SHIFT5, INC., a Delaware corporation Trial: October 13, 2026

27 Defendant. 1 1. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential or 3 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 4 use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order 7 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 8 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 9 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 10 applicable legal principles. 11 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This Action is likely to involve confidential information including medical 13 and psychological information relating to Plaintiff, and proprietary and/or private 14 information of Defendant and/or third parties, for which special protection from 15 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 16 Action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 17 consist of, among other things, confidential medical records and confidential 18 psychological records, confidential business or financial information, information 19 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential information 20 (including information implicating the privacy rights of third parties), information 21 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, and which may be privileged or 22 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 23 decisions, or common law. 24 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 25 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 26 protect information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 27 Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 28 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 1 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 2 matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as 3 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 4 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 5 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 6 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 7 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not automatically entitle them to file confidential 9 information under seal. Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 10 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 11 the court to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 14 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 15 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. 16 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony 17 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 18 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 20 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 21 Parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 22 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 23 ONLY” does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration 24 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 25 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 27 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 28 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 1 protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 3 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 4 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 5 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 6 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 7 declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 9 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 10 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 11 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 12 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 13 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 4. DEFINITIONS 15 4.1 Action: Klein v. Shift5, Inc., 2:25-cv-02305-CV (RAOx). 16 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 17 of information or items under this Order. 18 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information or tangible things 19 that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 20 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 21 4.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 22 Information or Items: extremely sensitive CONFIDENTIAL information or items, 23 the disclosure of which to another party or non-party would create a substantial 24 risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 25 4.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as 26 their support staff). 27 4.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 28 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 1 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 2 ONLY.” 3 4.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 4 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 5 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 6 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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)
Heft v. Ogle
18 A. 19 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brian Klein v. Shift5, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-klein-v-shift5-inc-cacd-2025.