C. Ted Thompson v. Westfax, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 27, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-02134·Unknown

Opinion

1 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. (328243) 2 || pamela@kazlg.com 3 Ashley LaPointe, Esq. (365017) ashley@kazlg.com 4|| 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 6|| Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 8 || C. Ted Thompson 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: 2:26-cv—02134-SB-SPx 12|| C. TED THOMPSON STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 V. 15 16|| WESTFAX, INC. 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 93 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 74 || warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 75 || the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 96 || does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 27 || that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 28 -|-

1 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 2 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 3 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 4 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 5 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 6 the court to file material under seal. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 9 10 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, commercially sensitive 11 information, pricing lists, customer contracts, and other valuable research, 12 development, commercial, financial, technical, and/or proprietary information for 13 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 14 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 15 materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 16 financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 17 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 18 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 19 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 20 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 21 law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 23 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 24 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 25 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 26 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 27 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 1 || tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 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 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: Thompson v. WestFax, Case No.:2:26-—cv—02134-SB-SPx 6 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 9|| of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 10 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 11 || Good Cause Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 13 || their support staff). 14 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 15||or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16|| “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 18 || regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 19 || Gncluding, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 20 || produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 22 || matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 23 || Serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 25 || Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 26 || outside counsel. 27 28 3.

1 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 2 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 4 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action, 5 including but not limited to those who have appeared in this Action on behalf of that 6 party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and 7 includes support staff. 8 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, 9 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 10 (and their support staffs). 11 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 12 Discovery Material in this Action. 13 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 14 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 15 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 16 and their employees and subcontractors. 17 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 18 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 19 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 20 Material from a Producing Party. 21 3. SCOPE 22 23 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 24 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 25 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 26 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 27 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 1 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. 2 This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 3 4. DURATION 4 5 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as 6 confidential or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will 7 be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless 8 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are 9 made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of 10 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” 11 showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” 12 standard when merits-related documents are part of court record). Accordingly, the 13 terms of this protective order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial. 14 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 15 16 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.

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

C. Ted Thompson v. Westfax, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2026).

C. Ted Thompson v. Westfax, Inc. (C. Ted Thompson v. Westfax, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Davis v. Miller
14 Va. 1 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1857)