Evan Harris v. FedEx Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 21, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00645
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

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

1 NAZGOLE HASHEMI (SBN 291711) nhashemi@legalaxxis.com 2 TANNAZ HASHEMI (SBN 296640) 3 thashemi@legalaxxis.com 4 LegalAxxis, Inc. 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 5 Century City, CA 90067 6 Telephone: (424) 249-3685 Facsimile: (424) 208-0622 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVAN HARRIS, an individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-00645-ODW (AFMx)

12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. [DISCOVERY MATTER] 14

15 FEDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware 16 corporation registered in California, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, 17 a Delaware corporation registered in 18 California, and DOES 1-10,

19 Defendants. 20 21 22 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 24 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 25 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 26 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 27 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 28 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

1 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 2 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 3 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve confidential commercial, financial, medical, 5 personal identifying information and contact information for non-party current and 6 former employees, employee personnel file(s) for current and/or non-party 7 employees, and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 8 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 9 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 10 among other things, confidential business, financial, personnel, and/or medical 11 records and information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 12 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 13 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 14 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 15 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 16 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 17 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 18 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 19 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 20 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 21 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 22 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 23 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 24 record of this case. 25 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 28 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

1 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 2 material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 5 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 6 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 7 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 8 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and 9 a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support 10 and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 11 to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 12 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 13 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 14 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 15 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 16 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 17 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 18 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 19 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 20 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 21 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 22 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 23 under seal must be provided by declaration. 24 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 25 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 26 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 27 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 28 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

1 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2 2. DEFINITIONS 3 2.1 Action: the above-captioned case. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 5 information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 7 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 8 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above 9 in the Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel 11 (as well as their support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 13 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 16 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 17 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 18 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 19 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 20 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 21 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in 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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Evan Harris v. FedEx Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evan-harris-v-fedex-corporation-cacd-2023.