Diamond v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 9, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-00857·Unknown

Opinion

1 CE-hmerayill: J ochjonhsnosno-Hn-ahratwrtwelel l(lS@BbNw 2sl2a1w0.6c3o)m 2 Paloma P. Peracchio (SBN 259034) E-mail: pperacchio@bwslaw.com 3 Lindsay M. Samuel (SBN 320075) E-mail: lsamuel@bwslaw.com 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400 5 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 Tel: 213.236.0600 Fax: 213.236.2700 6 Attorneys for Defendant WALMART INC. 7 Donald Potter (SBN 192735) 8 dp@donpotterlaw.com 690 East Green Street, Suite 102 10 Pasadena, California 91101 11 Telephone: 626.744.1555 Facsimile: 626.389.0592 12

13 Attorneys for Plaintiff, DERRIK DIAMOND, an individual 14 17 DERRIK DIAMOND, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-00857-LJO-JLT 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 20 ORDER WALMART INC., a corporation, 21 and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive

22 Defendant. 23

24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 12 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 This action is likely to involve commercial, financial, and/or proprietary 14 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 15 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential 16 and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 17 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 18 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 19 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 20 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 21 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 22 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 23 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 24 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 25 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 26 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 27 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 28 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 1 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 2 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 3 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 4 of the public record of this case. 5 6 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 9 under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 10 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 11 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 12 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 13 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 14 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 15 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 16 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 17 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 18 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 19 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 20 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 21 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 22 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 23 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 25 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 26 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 27 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 28 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 1 or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 2 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 3 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 4 under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, 5 privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the 6 confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 7 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise 8 protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to 9 file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 10 redaction is not feasible. 11 12 4. DEFINITIONS 13 4.1 Action: refers to the Complaint for Damages filed by Plaintiff against 14 Walmart Inc. on May 13, 2019 in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, 15 Case No. BCV-19-101292, and subsequently removed to the United States District 16 Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:19-cv-00857-LJO-JLT. 17 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 18 designation of information or items under this Order. 19 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Materialsor information 20 (including, but not limited to: contracts; non-public compilations of retail prices; 21 vendor agreements; materials containing nonpublic research and development data; 22 (including, but not limited to, ones containing cost data, pricing formulas, inventory 23 management programs, other sales or business information not known to the 24 public); information obtained from a non-party pursuant to a non-disclosure 25 agreement; and customer-related protected data) containing any privileged, 26 confidential, or nonpublic information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets, 27 research, design, development, financial, technical, marketing, planning, personal 28 information entitled to privacy, or commercial information if they qualify for 1 protection under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable case law 2 interpreting those rules, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement; 3 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 4 their support staff).

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

Diamond v. Walmart Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Diamond v. Walmart Inc. (Diamond v. Walmart Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)