Douglas Galanter v. Access Finance, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 19, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-09466
StatusUnknown

This text of Douglas Galanter v. Access Finance, Inc. (Douglas Galanter v. Access Finance, 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
Douglas Galanter v. Access Finance, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 Douglas Galanter, Case No. 2:23-cv-09466-ODW- 5 v. SSC

7 Los Angeles Auto Wholesalers & STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 8 Recovery Services, Inc. 9

11 1. INTRODUCTION 12 13 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 14 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 15 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 16 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 17 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 18 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 19 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 20 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 21 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 22 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 23 legal principles. 24 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 This action is likely to involve customer and pricing lists and other 2 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 3 proprietary information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 5 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 6 information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 7 financial information, information regarding confidential business 8 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 9 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 10 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 11 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 12 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 13 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 14 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 15 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 16 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 17 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 18 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 19 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 21 22 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 23 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 24 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 25 not be part of the public record of this case. 26 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 27 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 1 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 2 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 3 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 4 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 5 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 6 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 7 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 8 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 9 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 10 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 11 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 12 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 13 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 14 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 15 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 16 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 17 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 18 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 19 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 20 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 21 22 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 23 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 24 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 25 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 26 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 27 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 1 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 2 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 5 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 6 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 7 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 8 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 9 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10

11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 13 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 14 designation of information or items under this Order. 15 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 16 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 17 18 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 21 well as their support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 23 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 24 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.6 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 1 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 2 responses to discovery in this matter. 3 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in 4 a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 5 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 6 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 7 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment 8 herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, 9 remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for 10 filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 11 applicable law. 12 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to 13 this Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of 14 Record or any other outside counsel. 15 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 16 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Douglas Galanter v. Access Finance, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-galanter-v-access-finance-inc-cacd-2025.