Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 7, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-08651
StatusUnknown

This text of Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, 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
Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 THOMAS F. LANDERS [SBN 207335] tlanders@swsslaw.com 2 ETHAN B. SHAKOORI [SBN 330753] eshakoori@swsslaw.com 3 SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1200 4 San Diego, California 92101 (t) 619.231.0303 5 (f) 619.231.4755 6 Attorneys for Defendants MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, 7 INC. AND MIDLAND FUNDING LLC 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CATHRYN KENNEDI, Case No. 2:24-cv-08651-GW(JCx) 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. [CHANGES MADE BY COURT TO 14 MIDLAND CREDIT PARAGRAPHS 1.1, 3, 8, 9c & 12.3] MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND 15 FUNDING, LLC, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and DOES 1 16 through 10 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Plaintiff CATHRYN 2 KENNEDI (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, 3 INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), through their 4 respective counsel, stipulate to protective order as follows. Plaintiff and Defendants 5 will be each individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.” 6 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 8 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 9 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 10 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 11 the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 12 Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 13 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 14 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 15 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 16 Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does 17 not entitle them to file Confidential Information under seal. Rather, when parties seek 18 permission from the court to file material under seal, the parties must comply with 19 Civil Local Rule 79-5 and with any pertinent orders of the assigned District Judge and 20 Magistrate Judge. 21 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 22 Good cause exists for the parties to enter into this stipulated protective order to 23 prevent the public dissemination of Defendants’ confidential business information, 24 and the personal financial information of the Plaintiff. The stipulated protective order 25 is necessary to allow the parties to exchange information for the purposes of this 26 litigation regarding Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in the above-entitled matter. 27 Parties anticipate that current written discovery and future discovery will 1 using the judicial process to collect on a subject debt and to collect on valid judgments 2 obtained via the judicial process, its own internal compliance procedures related to 3 the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and related statutes, and other confidential 4 business information. The before mentioned confidential business information is the 5 appropriate subject of a protective order. See S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., 6 Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 681 (D.N.M. 2012) (disclosure of trade secrets, sensitive 7 commercial information, and information that gives a competitive advantage are 8 proper subjects of a protective order); Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 114 (E.D. 9 Pa. 1994) (the subject matter of confidential business information is broad, including 10 a wide variety of business information). If forced to reveal the aforementioned 11 information, Defendants will be subjected to a competitive disadvantage by being 12 forced to reveal its compliance procedures which give it a marked competitive 13 advantage to its competitors as well as other confidential information vital to its 14 operation. 15 Additionally, the protective order is necessary to allow for the personal 16 financial information of the Plaintiff and any third parties to be disclosed and 17 discussed without harm to the Plaintiff or third parties. The protection of the personal 18 financial information of a Plaintiff and any third parties constitutes good cause. 19 Horowitz v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, No. 14cv2512-MMA RBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20 172359, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016). 21 For the forgoing reasons, good cause exists for this protective order. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1. Action: this pending federal lawsuit, entitled Kennedi v. Midland 24 Credit Management, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Central District of 25 California, Case No. 2:24-cv-08651GW(JCx). 26 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the 27 designation of information or items under this Order. 1 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 2 (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 3 for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in 4 the Good Cause Statement. 5 2.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 6 as their support staff). 7 2.5. Designating Party: a Party or Nonparty that designates 8 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 9 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.6. Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 11 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 12 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 13 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 14 2.7. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 15 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 16 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 17 2.8. House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this 18 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 19 outside counsel. 20 2.9. Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 21 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 22 2.10. Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of 23 a Party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party and have appeared 24 in this Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared 25 on behalf of that Party, including support staff. 26 2.11. Party: any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, 27 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 1 2.12. Producing Party: a Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this Action. 3 2.13. Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 4 support services (for example, photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing 5 exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 6 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 7 2.14. Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 8 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.15. Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 10 Material from a Producing Party. 11 3. SCOPE 12 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 13 Protected Material (as defined above) but also any information copied or extracted 14 from Protected Material; all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected 15 Material; and any deposition testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or 16 their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material other than during a court hearing 17 or at trial.

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

Related

United States v. Conklin
154 F. Supp. 3d 732 (S.D. Illinois, 2016)
S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.
283 F.R.D. 671 (D. New Mexico, 2012)
Miles v. Boeing Co.
154 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cathryn-kennedi-v-midland-credit-management-inc-cacd-2025.