Corey Roche v. SLM Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 14, 2022
Docket8:21-cv-00985
StatusUnknown

This text of Corey Roche v. SLM Corporation (Corey Roche v. SLM Corporation) 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
Corey Roche v. SLM Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 8:21-cv-00985-CJC-JDE Document 39 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:211

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COREY ROCHE, ) Case No. 8:21-cv-00985-CJC-JDE ) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND 12 ) PROPOSED PROTECTIVE 13 vs. ) ) ORDER ) 14 SLM CORPORATION D/B/A SALLIE ) MAE BANK, EXPERIAN ) 15 ) INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., ) 16 AND EQUIFAX INFORMATION ) SERVICES, LLC, ) 17 ) ) 18 Defendants. ) 19 Based on the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 37) and for good cause shown, 20 the Court finds and orders as follows. 21 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may 25 26 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 27 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 28 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to Case 8:21-cv-00985-CJC-JDE Document 39 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:212

1 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 2 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 3 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 4 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 6 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 7 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 8 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 9 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 10 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 11 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 12 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of 13 third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 14 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 15 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 16 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 17 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 18 19 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 20 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in 21 the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 22 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 23 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated 24 as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a 25 good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 26 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record 27 of this case. 28 / / / 2 Case 8:21-cv-00985-CJC-JDE Document 39 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:213

1 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 2 PROCEDURE 3 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 4 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 5 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 6 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 7 from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the 8 public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In 9 connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support 10 a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210- 12 11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 13 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 14 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 15 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 16 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 17 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does 18 19 not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing 20 that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 21 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 23 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 24 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 25 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 26 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be 27 filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 28 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 3 Case 8:21-cv-00985-CJC-JDE Document 39 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:214

1 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 2 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 4 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 5 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 6 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 7 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 8 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 9 redaction is not feasible. 10 4. DEFINITIONS 11 4.1 Action: Roche v. Sallie Mae Bank, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 12 and Equifax Information Services, LLC; case number 8:21-00985-CJC-JDE 13 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 14 designation of information or items under this Order. 15 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 16 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 17 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above 18 19 in the Good Cause Statement. 20 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 21 their support staff). 22 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 23 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery 24 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 26 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 27 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 28 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 4 Case 8:21-cv-00985-CJC-JDE Document 39 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:215

1 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 2 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel 3 to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 5 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 6 other outside counsel.

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)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Corey Roche v. SLM Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corey-roche-v-slm-corporation-cacd-2022.