Bruce A. Aronson v. FCA US, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 18, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-09386
StatusUnknown

This text of Bruce A. Aronson v. FCA US, LLC (Bruce A. Aronson v. FCA US, 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
Bruce A. Aronson v. FCA US, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 BRUCE A. ARONSON and SECURE Case No.2:19-cv-09386-JFW-JPR 5 TECH 6 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 7 ORDER1 8 v.

9 FCA US LLC; RYDELL CHRYSLER 10 DODGE JEEP RAM and DOES 1 NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT through 10, inclusive 11

12 Defendants.

14 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 15 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 16 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 17 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 18 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 19 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 20 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 21 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 22 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 23 under the applicable legal principles. 24 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve 25 documents pertaining to trade secrets or other confidential research, development, 26 or commercial business information, the disclosure of which might cause 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective order provided 1 competitive harm, that is contained in Protected Documents, and which have not 2 been disclosed or made available to the public. Confidential information may 3 include, but is not limited to (1) engineering documents, including design drawings 4 and other technical engineering related specifications, (2) test documents, analysis, 5 and testing procedures; (3) manufacturing specifications and procedures, including 6 communications with and process documents pertaining to FCA US LLC’s suppliers 7 and supplier relationships; (4) internal business or financial information; (5) 8 confidential Customer information and personal identifying information; and (6) any 9 other similar proprietary, confidential, private information, commercially sensitive 10 business information, or competitive intelligence, including but not limited to trade 11 secrets. “Customer” shall mean any person or entity that purchases or otherwise comes to possess FCA US, LLC’s product and/or uses or possesses products/services 12 13 offered or sold by San Fernando Motor Company dba Rydell Chrysler Dodge Jeep 14 Ram. 15 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 16 SEAL 17 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 18 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 19 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 20 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 21 to file material under seal. 22 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 23 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 24 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 25 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 26 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 27 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 1 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 2 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 3 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 4 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 5 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 6 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 7 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 8 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 9 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 10 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 11 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 12 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 13 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 14 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 15 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 16 declaration. 17 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 18 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 19 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 20 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 21 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 22 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 23 2. DEFINITIONS 24 2.1 Action: Bruce A. Aronson, et al. v. FCA US LLC, et al., Central District 25 of California Case No. 2:19-cv-09386-JFW-JPR. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 27 designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 1 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 2 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 3 the Good Cause Statement. 4 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 5 their support staff). 6 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 7 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 8 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 10 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 11 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 12 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 13 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 14 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 15 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 16 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 17 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 18 counsel. 19 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 20 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 21 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 22 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action 23 and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 24 firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 25 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 26 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 27 support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 1 Discovery Material in 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)
Warren v. Steer
5 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1886)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bruce A. Aronson v. FCA US, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-a-aronson-v-fca-us-llc-cacd-2020.