Charay Morris v. M and C Hotel Interests, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 3, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-07544
StatusUnknown

This text of Charay Morris v. M and C Hotel Interests, Inc. (Charay Morris v. M and C Hotel Interests, 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
Charay Morris v. M and C Hotel Interests, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 LlgOiaNmNelIaE@ Df.i sGheIArpMhiEllLipAs.,c SomBN 228435 2 ANET DRAPALSKI, SBN 282086 adrapalski@fisherphillips.com 3 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 5 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 6 Attorneys for Defendants M&C HOTEL INTERESTS, INC. dba MILLENNIUM 7 BILTMORE HOTEL LOS ANGELES and JIMMY WU 8 BRIANA M. KIM (SBN 255966) 9 briana@brianakim.com BRIANA KIM, PC 10 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, California 90802 11 Telephone: (714) 482-6301 Facsimile: (714) 482-6302 12 Attorney for Plaintiff 13 CHARAY MORRIS 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 17 18 CHARAY MORRIS, an individual, Case No: 2:20-CV-07544-JAK-E 19 Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt 20 v. 21 MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL JOINT STIPULATED PROTECTIVE LOS ANGELES, a business entity ORDER 22 form unknown; JIMMY WU, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, 23 inclusive, Complaint Filed: June 22, 2020 24 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set 25 26 27 28 1 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff CHARAY MORRIS and Defendant M&C 6 HOTEL INTERESTS, INC. (collectively “the Parties”) hereby stipulate to and 7 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 8 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 9 or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 10 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 11 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 12 acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective 13 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 14 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 15 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under 16 seal. 17 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 19 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 20 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 21 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 22 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 23 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 24 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 25 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 26 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public (e.g., names, 27 addresses, and other contact information for Defendants’ employees and agents), 28 or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 1 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 2 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 3 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 4 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 5 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 6 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 7 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 8 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 9 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 10 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 11 should not be part of the public record of this case. 12 III. DEFINITIONS 13 A. Action: The above-entitled case styled Charay Morris v. M&C Hotel 14 Interests, Inc. dba Millennium Biltmore Hotel Los Angles, pending before the 15 United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:20- 16 cv-07544-JAK-E, removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los 17 Angeles, Case No. 20STCV23491. 18 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 19 designation of information or items under this Order. 20 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 21 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 22 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 23 the Good Cause Statement. 24 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 25 their support staff). 26 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 27 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 28 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 2 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 3 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 4 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 7 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 H. House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 9 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 10 outside counsel. 11 I. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 12 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 13 J. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 14 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 15 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 16 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 17 K. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 18 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 19 support staffs). 20 L. Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 21 Discovery Material in this Action. 22 M. Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation 23 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 24 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 25 and their employees and subcontractors. 26 N. Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 27 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 /// 1 O. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 2 Material from a Producing Party. 3 IV. SCOPE 4 A. The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 5 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 6 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 7 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 8 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

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)
Agricultural Insurance v. Potts
26 A. 27 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1892)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charay Morris v. M and C Hotel Interests, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charay-morris-v-m-and-c-hotel-interests-inc-cacd-2021.