Elber Flores v. Nissan North America, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 11, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-04518
StatusUnknown

This text of Elber Flores v. Nissan North America, Inc. (Elber Flores v. Nissan North America, 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
Elber Flores v. Nissan North America, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 AMIR NASSIHI (SBN 235936) anassihi@shb.com 2 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 3 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 4 Tel: (415) 544-1900 | Fax: (415) 391-0281

5 BRADY O’BRYAN (SBN 335729) bobryan@shb.com 6 KEITH W. STAFFORD (SBN 357631) 7 kwstafford@shb.com SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 8 Jamboree Center 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600 9 Irvine, CA 92614-2546 10 Tel: (949) 475-1500 | Fax: (949) 475-0016

11 Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. 12

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 16 ELBER FLORES, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-04518-WLH-PD

17 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

18 vs. (PD Version)

19 ☒ Check if submitted without material 20 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a modifications to PD form Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 21 through 10, inclusive,

22 Defendants. 23

25 1. INTRODUCTION 26 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 27 1 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 2 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 3 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 4 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 5 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 6 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 7 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 8 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 9 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 10 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 11 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 12 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 13 the court to file material under seal. 14 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 16 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 17 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 18 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 19 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 20 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 21 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 22 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 23 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 24 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 25 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 26 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 27 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 1 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 2 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 3 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 4 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 5 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 6 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 7 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 8 case. 9 10 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Case No. 2:25-cv-04518-WLH-PD. 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 12 of information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 14 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 15 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 16 Cause Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 23 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 24 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 25 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 27 1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 3 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 6 counsel. 7 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 8 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 10 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 11 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 12 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 13 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 14 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 15 support staffs). 16 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 17 Discovery Material in this Action. 18 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 19 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 20 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 21 and their employees and subcontractors. 22 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 23 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 25 from a Producing Party. 26 27 3. SCOPE 1 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 2 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted 3 from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of 4 Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties 5 or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 6 Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial 7 judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 8 9 4. DURATION 10 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information that was designated as 11 confidential or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will 12 be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless 13 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are 14 made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of 15 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” 16 showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” 17 standard when merits-related documents are part of court record).

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Elber Flores v. Nissan North America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elber-flores-v-nissan-north-america-inc-cacd-2025.