David Robinson v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 23, 2023
Docket8:23-cv-00803
StatusUnknown

This text of David Robinson v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (David Robinson v. Quest Diagnostics, 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
David Robinson v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DAVID ROBINSON, an individual; 10 NINA ROBINSON, an individual, Case No. 8:23-cv-00803 JWH (JDEx)

11 Plaintiffs,

12 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, 13 INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, dba QUEST 14 DIAGNOSTICS; DOES 1 through 15, [Note Changes by the Court] inclusive, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Based on the Parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 14) , as modified by the Court under the 18 applicable authorities, and for good cause shown, the Court finds and orders as follows. 19 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 22 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 23 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 24 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 1 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 2 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 3 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth further below, that this Stipulated 5 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local

6 Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 7 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 8 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 9 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 10 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 11 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 12 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 13 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 14 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 15 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 16 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of material

17 under this Order does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 18 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 19 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a 20 party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, 21 not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 22 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific 23 Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 24 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 1 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 2 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Competent evidence supporting the 3 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any 4 document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 5 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents

6 can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 7 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 8 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 9 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 At this time discovery is anticipated to include production of documents and 12 information that may be of a confidential and/or proprietary nature for which special 13 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution 14 of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 15 information may consist of, among other things, confidential Protected Health 16 Information pursuant to 45 CFR Parts 160-164 and California Civil Code section 56, et

17 seq., proprietary and confidential business policies, standard operating procedures, 18 commercial information, personnel information, quality assurance/control 19 information, and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 20 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 21 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow 22 of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 23 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 24 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 1 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 2 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 3 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 4 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 5 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential,

6 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 7 record of this case. 8 III. DEFINITIONS 9 A. Action: David Robinson and Nina Robinson v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 10 USDC Central District Case No. 8:23-cv-00803. 11 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 12 of information or items under this Order. 13 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how 14 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 16 Statement.

17 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of 22 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 23 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 24 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 1 G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 3 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 H. House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a Party. House Counsel 5 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel.

6 I. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 7 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 8 J. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party 9 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 10 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 11 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 12 K.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
David Robinson v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-robinson-v-quest-diagnostics-inc-cacd-2023.