Evan Harris v. FedEx Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 21, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-00645·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-00645-ODW-AFM Document 16 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:182

NAZGOLE HASHEMI (SBN 291711) nhashemi@legalaxxis.com TANNAZ HASHEMI (SBN 296640) thashemi@legalaxxis.com LegalAxxis, Inc. 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 249-3685 Facsimile: (424) 208-0622 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EVAN HARRIS, an individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-00645-ODW (AFMx)

Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER v. [DISCOVERY MATTER]

FEDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation registered in California, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation registered in California, and DOES 1-10,

Defendants. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 1 [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:23-cv-00645-ODW-AFM Document 16 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:183

from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. This action is likely to involve confidential commercial, financial, medical, personal identifying information and contact information for non-party current and former employees, employee personnel file(s) for current and/or non-party employees, and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business, financial, personnel, and/or medical records and information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 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 [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:23-cv-00645-ODW-AFM Document 16 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:184

and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 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 entirety should include an 3 [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:23-cv-00645-ODW-AFM Document 16 Filed 03/21/23 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:185

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

Evan Harris v. FedEx Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Evan Harris v. FedEx Corporation (Evan Harris v. FedEx Corporation) — 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)
Burrell v. Hampshire County
307 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
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)