Dawnett Mitchell v. Walmart Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 16, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-07916
StatusUnknown

This text of Dawnett Mitchell v. Walmart Inc. (Dawnett Mitchell v. Walmart 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
Dawnett Mitchell v. Walmart Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-07916-DMG-PD Document 16 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:119

1 Andrew O. Smith, Esq., SBN 217538 Flora Ruoyu Li, Esq., SBN 337817 2 PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN PC 5901 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1100 3 Los Angeles, California 90045 Tel: (310) 649-5772 4 Fax: (310) 649-5777 Email: aosmith@pettitkohn.com 5 fli@pettitkohn.com

6 Attorneys for Defendant WALMART INC. 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

10 DAWNETT MITCHELL, Case No. 2:22-cv-07916-DMG (PDx)

11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 12 v. Courtroom: 8C 13 WALMART, INC. and DOES 1 to District Judge: Hon. Dolly M. Gee 20, Magistrate Judge: Hon. Patricia Donahue 14 Complaint Filed: June 2, 2022 Defendants. Trial: Not set 15 16 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 17 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 18 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 19 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 20 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 21 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 22 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 23 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 24 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 25 under the applicable legal principles. 26 /// 27

28 1This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue’s procedures. 1 2354-9578 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 2:22-CV-07916-DMG (PDx) Case 2:22-cv-07916-DMG-PD Document 16 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:120

1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, 3 company confidential policies and procedures, employee’s personal information 4 and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 5 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 6 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 7 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 8 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 9 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 10 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 11 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 12 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 13 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 14 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 15 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 16 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 17 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 18 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 19 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 20 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 21 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a 22 good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 23 and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 24 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 25 SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 27 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 28 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 2 2354-9578 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 2:22-CV-07916-DMG (PDx) Case 2:22-cv-07916-DMG-PD Document 16 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:121

1 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 2 from the court to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 6 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 7 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 8 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 9 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 10 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 11 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 12 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 13 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 14 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 15 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 17 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 18 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 19 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 20 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 21 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 22 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 23 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 24 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 25 declaration. 26 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 27 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 28 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 3 2354-9578 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 2:22-CV-07916-DMG (PDx) Case 2:22-cv-07916-DMG-PD Document 16 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:122

1 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 2 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 3 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: Dawnett Mitchell v. Walmart, Inc., et al., Case No. 6 2:22-cv-07916-DM (PDx). 7 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges 8 the designation of information or items under this Order. 9 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 10 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 11 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 12 the Good Cause Statement. 13 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 14 their support staff).

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)
Dawnett Mitchell v. Walmart Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawnett-mitchell-v-walmart-inc-cacd-2022.