Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 7, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-08651·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

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

Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Cathryn Kennedi v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)