Eric Hayde and Megan Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc., a Delaware corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 9, 2026
Docket8:24-cv-02657
StatusUnknown

This text of Eric Hayde and Megan Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc., a Delaware corporation (Eric Hayde and Megan Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc., a Delaware corporation) 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
Eric Hayde and Megan Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc., a Delaware corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SOUTHERN DIVISION

11 ERIC HAYDE and MEGAN WHEELER, Case No. 8:24-cv-02657-JDE 12 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER 14 Plaintiffs, Assigned to the Hon. John D. Early 15 vs. 16 ARCADIA CONSUMER 17 HEALTHCARE INC., a Delaware 18 corporation,

19 Defendant. 20 21 Based on the parties’ Stipulation and for good cause shown, the Court finds 22 and orders as follows. 23 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 26 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 27 warranted. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Stipulated Protective Order. 28 This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only 2 to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under 3 the applicable legal principles. 4 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 6 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 7 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 8 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 9 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 10 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 11 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 12 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 13 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 14 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 15 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 16 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 17 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 18 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 19 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 20 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 21 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 22 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 23 nothing be so 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 not be part 25 of the public record of this case. 26 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 28 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 2 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 3 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 4 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 5 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 6 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 7 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 8 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 9 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 10 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 11 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 12 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 13 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 14 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 15 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 18 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 19 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 20 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or 21 introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 22 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 23 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 24 under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 26 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 27 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 28 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 2 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 4. DEFINITIONS 4 4.1 Action: All references to “Action,” “this action,” or “the action” refer 5 to this pending federal lawsuit, Hayde v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc., No. 6 8:24-CV-02657-JDE (C.D. Cal.). 7 4.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 8 designation of information or items under this Order. 9 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 10 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 11 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 12 the Good Cause Statement. 13 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 14 their support staff). 15 4.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 16 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 19 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 20 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 21 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 22 4.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 23 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 24 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 25 4.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 26 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 27 counsel. 28 4.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 4 party to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have 5 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 6 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eric Hayde and Megan Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc., a Delaware corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-hayde-and-megan-wheeler-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-cacd-2026.