Delaney v. Target Corporation

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 20, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00818·Unknown

Opinion

Nevada Bar No. 7567 Nevada Bar No. 8725 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7670 W Lake Mead Blvd, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Telephone: (702) 257-1997 Facsimile: (702) 257-2203 lyoung@lgclawoffice.com jwhite@lgclawoffice.com Attorneys for Defendant,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

LISA MICHELLE DELANEY, individually CASE NO: 2:25-cv-00818-GMN-MDC Plaintiff,

v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL TARGET CORPORATION, STORE #265, a MATERIALS Foreign Corporation; DAYTON HUDSON CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation; DOE TARGET EMPLOYEE, an individual; DOE MAINTENANCE COMPANY, inclusive; DOE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE, an individual; inclusive; DOE INDIVIDUALS 1-20, inclusive; and ROE ENTITIES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned attorneys for the respective parties, that with regard to material disclosed in the course of the above-captioned lawsuit (“Lawsuit”) which constitute or contain trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information of the parties (“Confidential Material”), the following procedures shall govern: 1. This Order is meant to encompass all forms of disclosure which may contain Confidential Material, including any document, pleading, motion, exhibit, declaration, affidavit, deposition transcript, inspection and all other tangible items (electronic media, photographs, videocassettes, etc.). 2. The parties may designate any Confidential Material produced or filed in this Lawsuit as confidential and subject to the terms of this Order by marking such materials “Confidential”. If any material has multiple pages, this designation need only be placed on the first page of such material. Any material designated as “Confidential” shall not be disclosed to any person or entity, except to the parties, counsel in this Lawsuit, and the Court. 3. Any material designated as confidential pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be used solely for the purposes of this Lawsuit and for no other purpose. 4. Prior to disclosure of any Confidential Material, each person to whom disclosure is to be made shall execute a written “Confidentiality Agreement” (in the form attached hereto) consenting to be bound by the terms of this Order. The parties, counsel for the respective parties (including legal assistants and other personnel) and the Court are deemed to be bound by this Order and are not required to execute a Confidentiality Agreement. 5. Only counsel of record in this Lawsuit shall be permitted to disseminate Confidential Material. Upon dissemination of any Confidential Material, each non-designating counsel of record in this Lawsuit shall maintain a written record as to: (1) the identity of any person given Confidential Material, and (2) the identity of the Confidential Material so disseminated (such as by “Bates stamp” number). Such record shall be made available to the designating party upon request. 6. If additional persons become parties to this Lawsuit, they shall not have access to any Confidential Material until they execute and file with the Court their written agreement to be bound by the terms of this Order. 7. In the event that any question is asked at a deposition that calls for the disclosure of Confidential Material, the witness shall answer such question (unless otherwise instructed not to do so on grounds of privilege) provided that the only persons in attendance at the deposition are persons who are qualified to receive such information pursuant this Order. Deposition testimony may be designated as confidential following the testimony having been given provided that: (1) such testimony of the designation in writing within thirty days after receipt by the designating party of the respective deposition transcript. All deposition transcripts in their entirety shall be treated in the interim as “Confidential” pursuant to paragraph 2 above. When Confidential Material is incorporated in a deposition transcript, the party designating such information confidential shall make arrangements with the court reporter not to disclose any information except in accordance with the terms of this Order. 8. If a deponent refuses to execute a Confidentiality Agreement, disclosure of Confidential Material during the deposition shall not constitute a waiver of confidentiality. Under such circumstances, the witness shall sign the original deposition transcript in the presence of the court reporter and no copy of the transcript or exhibits shall be given to the deponent. 9. With respect to any communications to the Court, including any pleadings, motions or other papers, all documents containing Confidential Material shall be done in accordance with Local Rules IA 10-4 and IA 10-5, in additions to the directives set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). All communications shall indicate clearly which portions are designated to be “Confidential” through a Motion to Seal and/or redaction 10. The Court may order the court files and records, or any part thereof, to be sealed or redacted, provided the Court makes and enters written findings that the specific sealing or redaction is justified by identified compelling privacy or safety interests that outweigh the public interest in access to the court records. 11. If a non-designating party is subpoenaed or ordered to produce Confidential Material by another court or administrative agency, such party shall promptly notify the designating party of the pending subpoena or order and shall not produce any Confidential Material until the designating party has had reasonable time to object or otherwise take appropriate steps to protect such Confidential Material. 12. If a party believes that any Confidential Material does not contain confidential information, it may contest the applicability of this Order to such information by notifying the thirty days after such notice to meet and confer and attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute is not resolved within such period, the party seeking the protection shall have thirty days in which to make a motion for a protective order with respect to contested information. Information that is subject to a dispute as to whether it is properly designated shall be treated as designated in accordance with the provisions of this Order until the Court issues a ruling. 13. Inadvertent failure to designate any material “Confidential” or shall not constitute a waiver of an otherwise valid claim of confidentiality pursuant to this Order, so long as a claim of confidentiality is asserted within fifteen days after discovery of the inadvertent failure. At such time, arrangements shall be made by the parties to designate the material “Confidential” in accordance with this Order. 14. This Order shall be without prejudice to the right of any party to oppose production of any information or object to its admissibility into evidence. 15. When any counsel of record in this Lawsuit or any attorney who has executed a Confidentiality Agreement becomes aware of any violation of this Order, or of facts constituting good cause to believe that a violation of this Order may have occurred, such attorney shall report that there may have been a violation of this Order to the Court and all counsel of record. 16. Within thirty days after the termination of this Lawsuit (whether by dismissal or final judgment), all Confidential Material (including all copies) shall be returned to counsel for the designating party. In addition, counsel returning such material shall execute an affidavit verifying that all Confidential Material produced to such counsel and any subsequently made copies are being returned in their entirety pursuant to the terms of this order. Such a representation

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

Delaney v. Target Corporation, (D. Nev. 2025).

Delaney v. Target Corporation (Delaney v. Target Corporation) — 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)
Bradley v. Sugarbaker
809 F.3d 8 (First Circuit, 2015)