Canterberry v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 3, 2022·No. 2:20-cv-02361·Unknown

Opinion

GREGORY G. ISKANDER, Bar No. 200215 giskander@littler.com YESENIA GARCIA PEREZ, Bar No. 264880 ygarciaperez@littler.com Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, California 94597 Telephone: 925.932.2468 Fax No.: 925.946.9809 Attorneys for Defendant TOMMY CANTERBERRY, Case No. 2:20-CV-02361-KJM-KJN) Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v.

ACARA SOLUTIONS, INC., a New Complaint filed: October 2, 2020 York business organization; SIEMENS (Sacramento County Superior Court MOBILITY INC., a Delaware business Case No.: 34-2020-002-86414) organization; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

Plaintiff Tommy Canterberry (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Siemens Mobility Inc. (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel of record, enter into this Stipulated Protective Order. 1. Agreements. a. Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, the “Parties”), and non-parties will be exchanging documents and information solely because they are involved in the above-captioned litigation. b. The Parties agree that all information exchanged will be used only for purposes of this particular litigation and for no other purpose. c. The Parties also acknowledge that it is likely that they and non-parties will produce in this litigation information that is confidential or proprietary. d. Due to the nature of this case, this Protective Order is necessary to ensure proper and efficient conduct of this action and to protect the Parties’ and non-parties’ respective commercial interests in proprietary, marketing and commercial information. Specifically, the Parties in this action will need to request and produce information that may contain proprietary/confidential information, commercial information, sensitive financial information, technical information, trade secrets, private health information or private personal information. e. The disclosure of this information will likely cause the producing Party, or non-parties from whom such information is sought, significant harm if this information is disclosed without the conditions and protections contained herein. f. The Parties agree that this Order shall apply to and govern the treatment of all information contained in documents, depositions, deposition exhibits, interrogatory answers, responses to requests for production, responses to requests for admission, responses to subpoenas, and other written, recorded, computerized, electronic, or graphic matter, copies, excerpts, or summaries of documents (“Discovery Material”) produced by any Party or non-party in this litigation. g. The Parties and any non-parties may designate Information and Documents as “Confidential Information” or “Highly Confidential Information,” as defined below. Any Party or non-party so designating is a “Designating Party.” 2. Definitions. a. “Confidential” or “CONFIDENTIAL” information is information that that the Designating Party in good faith reasonably believes will disclose confidential and nonpublic technical, commercial, financial, personal or business information that would provide others with an unfair competitive or improper advantage, including but not limited to trade secrets. Confidential Information also means an individual’s private or personal information which, if disclosed, would violate the privacy rights of that individual. b. “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information is information that, if generally disclosed to the opposing Party, the Designating Party reasonably and in good faith believes constitutes (i) trade secrets, (ii) operating, management or other proprietary agreements, (iii) confidential business ownership information, (iv) business financial records or projections, (v) proprietary information and technical specifications, (vi) confidential strategic business plans and projections, (vii) employee information, or (viii) information that is subject to an express obligation of confidentiality owed by the Designating Party to a third-party. c. “Designating Party” means the party producing or designating information as Confidential or Highly Confidential under this Stipulated Protective Order. d. “Receiving Party” means any party to whom Confidential or Highly Confidential information is produced. e. “Outside Expert” means an expert who is retained to assist counsel for the Parties in connection with this litigation. 3. Designation as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” a. All Confidential or Highly Confidential Discovery Material in the form of physical objects or documents shall be designated by stamping or affixing on the face of each document and on each page or portion thereof one of the following two legends: “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (in either lower case or upper case letters) or by designating the material as Confidential or as Highly Confidential- Attorneys’ Eyes Only in accompanying correspondence, emails, or similar transmissions. b. All Confidential or Highly Confidential Discovery Material in the form of software or digital material stored on an electronic storage device shall be designated by affixing either a “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” legend on the device itself, by electronically stamping one of these legends on each page or portion thereof, or by designating the material as Confidential or as Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only in accompanying correspondence, emails, or similar transmissions. c. Testimony given at a deposition or hearing, the resulting transcript, and its exhibits may be designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential within thirty (30) days after receipt of a copy of the transcript by advising the opposing Party and the stenographer in writing of the specific page and line numbers designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential. Pages of transcribed testimony or exhibits designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential shall be separately bound by the stenographer. All copies of deposition transcripts that contain information or material designated as Confidential Discovery Material shall be marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” on the cover. d. In the event any Designating Party produces Confidential or Highly Confidential information that has not been correctly designated, the Designating Party may redesignate the information to the same extent as it may have designated the information before production, by a subsequent notice in writing specifically identifying the redesignated information. The parties shall treat such information in accordance with this Stipulated Protective Order, and shall undertake reasonable efforts to correct any disclosure of such information contrary to the redesignation. No proof of error, inadvertence, or excusable neglect shall be required for such redesignation. e. A Designating Party who has designated information as Confidential or Highly Confidential may withdraw the designation by written notification to all Parties. 4. Use and Disclosure of Confidential and Highly Confidential Information. a. Until or unless the Court rules otherwise, material marked or otherwise designated as Confidential and Highly Confidential shall be maintained in strict confidence by the Receiving Parties under the terms set forth below. b. Confidential Information may only be disclosed to: i. Officers, directors, employees or consultants of the Receiving Party as part of their assistance with preparing, prosecuting or trying the case, but only to the extent necessary to allow them to provide that assistance; ii. Outside counsel for the respective Parties, including their clerical, litigation support and paralegal employees; iii. Outside Experts; iv. Any witness or his or her counsel in preparation for a deposition or otherwise testifying in any proceeding, who shall be provided prior to or at the outset of the deposition, hearing or trial with a copy of the Stipulated

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

Canterberry v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Canterberry v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. (Canterberry v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)