Clear View Enterprises v. Beauvil

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 13, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-01119·Unknown

Opinion

1 Michael N. Sofris, Esq. SBN 170018 Action Legal Team 2 13920 NW Passage #304 Marina del Rey, Ca 90292 3 michaelsofris@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Clear View Enterprises, LLC 4 Nicholas R. Webb, Esq. SBN 332586 5 Law Office of Nicholas R. Webb 1426 Plaza del Oro 6 Benecia, Ca 94510 contact@nickwebblaw.com 7 Attorneys for Defendants Lawrence B. Albano, Elizabeth Raquel Beauvil and Global 8 Empire Holdings

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Clear View Enterprises, LLC, a California 12 Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01119-KJM-JDP

Plaintiff, 13 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 Elizabeth Raquel Beauvil aka Beauvil Raquel 15 Beauvil; Global Empire Holdings, a Florida Limited Liability Company; Lawrence B. 16 Albano; Chelsea Jones; Does 1-10, inclusive,

17 Defendants. 18

19 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 23 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 24 1 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 2 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 3 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 4 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 5 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The

6 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 8 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5141 sets forth the procedures that must be 9 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 10 from the Court to file material under seal. 11 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 A. This action is likely to involve the exchange of documents that either 13 contain information deemed private or has the potential of being deemed private 14 pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 15 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, enacted on August 21, 1996 for which special 16 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than

17 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 18 materials and information consists of referrals and intake forms prepared for the 19 purpose of identifying potential class action which includes information 20 implicating the privacy rights of these third parties, information otherwise 21 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 22 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 23 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 24 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 1 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 2 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 3 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 4 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective 5 order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the

6 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 7 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 8 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 9 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 10 III. DEFINITIONS 11 A. Action: This pending lawsuit entitled Clear View Enterprises, LLC v. 12 Beauvil, Et. Al. Case No. 2:22-cv-01119-KJM-JDP. 13 14 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 15 of information or items under this Order. 16 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how 17 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 the Good Cause Statement. 20 D. Counsel: Counsel of Record as well as their support staff. 21 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 22 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 23 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 1 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of 2 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 3 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that 4 are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this 5 matter.

6 G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 7 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 8 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 9 H. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 10 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 11 I. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party 12 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 13 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 14 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 15 J. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 16 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and

17 their support staffs). 18 K. Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 19 Discovery Material in this Action. 20 L. Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support 21 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 22 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 23 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 24 1 M. Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 2 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3 N. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 4 from a Producing Party. 5 IV. SCOPE

6 A. The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 7 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 8 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 9 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 10 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 11 B. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of 12 the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 13 V. DURATION 14 A. Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as 15 confidential or maintained pursuant to this Protective Order becomes public and 16 will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press,

17 unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed 18 otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. 19 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) 20 (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in 21 discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents 22 are part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this Protective Order do not 23 extend beyond the commencement of the trial. 24 1 VI. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 2 A.

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

Clear View Enterprises v. Beauvil, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Clear View Enterprises v. Beauvil (Clear View Enterprises v. Beauvil) — 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)