Eileen Farrell v. Sams West, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 23, 2023
Docket5:23-cv-01370
StatusUnknown

This text of Eileen Farrell v. Sams West, Inc. (Eileen Farrell v. Sams West, 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
Eileen Farrell v. Sams West, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 B ron D’Angelo, Esq. (SBN 246819) Sean N. Costa, Esq. (SBN 347439) 2 BURGER | MEYER LLP 999 Corporate Drive, Suite 220 3 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 4 Telephone: (949) 427-1888 Facsimile: (949) 427-1889 5 Email: bdangelo@burgermeyer.com scosta@burgermeyer.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 SAM’S WEST, INC. (erroneously named in complaint as “SAM’S WEST, INC., SAM’S WEST, INC. dba SAM’S CLUB”) 8

9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 EILEEN FARRELL, Case No: 5:23-cv-01370-AB-SP Hon. André Birotte Jr. 13 Plaintiff, Crtrm 7B – First Street Courthouse

14 vs. 15 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE SAM'S WEST, INC., and DOES 1 TO ORDER 16 100, Inclusive, [NOTE CHANGES MADE BY 17 Defendants. COURT IN §§ 1.2, 6.1, 9.3]

18 19 1. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 20 The following parties, EILEEN FARRELL (“Plaintiff”) and SAM’S WEST, 21 INC. (“Sam’s West”), by their undersigned counsel, have and hereby stipulate and 22 agree to entry of the following Stipulated Protective Order and to abide by the 23 following terms: 24 WHEREAS, the Parties have propounded or will propound certain discovery 25 request and initial disclosures including information which either Party considers to 26 be proprietary, confidential business records and/or trade secrets, or sensitive 27 confidential or private information (“confidential documents and information”); and 28 1 WHEREAS, the Parties have expressed a willingness to provide the 2 confidential documents and information which would be necessarily disclosed in 3 complying with these discovery requests and initial disclosures, provided that the 4 Court enter an appropriate protective order; and 5 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 6 protections on all disclosures or response to discovery and that the protection it 7 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 8 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles; 9 and 10 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to this; 11 The following procedure shall govern the production, use and disposal of the 12 confidential information: 13 1.1 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve trade secrets 14 and other valuable commercial, financial, technical, security, and/or proprietary 15 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 16 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential 17 and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 18 confidential business information, information regarding confidential business 19 practices, or other commercial information (including information implicating 20 privacy rights of third parties), information generally unavailable to the public, or 21 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 22 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 23 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 24 confidential discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 25 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the Parties are permitted reasonable 26 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 27 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 28 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 1 parties that the information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 2 and that nothing be so designated without good faith belief that it has been 3 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 4 should not be part of the public records of this case. 5 1.2 Acknowledgement of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The Parties 6 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 9.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective 7 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 8 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 9 be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 10 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 11 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 12 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 13 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 14 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2006), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 15 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 16 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 17 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 18 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The Parties’ mere 19 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Materials as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 20 without submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 21 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 22 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party is seeking sealing related to a dispositive motion, then 24 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown and the 25 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 26 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 27 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 28 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the party seeking protection 1 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 2 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 3 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 5 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 6 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 7 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 8 shall be filled. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 9 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 2. SCOPE 11 The protection conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 12 confidential material but also (1) any information copied or extracted from the 13 confidential material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of the 14 confidential material, and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by 15 Parties or their Counsels that might reveal the confidential material. 16 Any use of the confidential material at trial shall be governed by the orders of 17 the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of the confidential material at 18 trial. 19 3. DURATION 20 Once a case proceeds to trial, information that was designated as 21 “confidential” or “produced pursuant to protective order” or in some similar fashion 22 any document for which it claims protection under this Order, becomes public and 23 will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, 24 unless compelling reasons supported in advance of trial. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 25 1180-81 (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in 26 discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents are 27 part of court record).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eileen Farrell v. Sams West, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eileen-farrell-v-sams-west-inc-cacd-2023.