ExamWorks, LLC v. Baldini

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 11, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00920·Unknown

Opinion

ROBERT S. SHWARTS (STATE BAR NO. 196803) rshwarts@orrick.com CATHERINE Y. LUI (STATE BAR NO. 239648) clui@orrick.com NATHAN SHAFFER (STATE BAR NO. 282015) nshaffer@orrick.com JOHANNA L. JACOB (STATE BAR NO. 286796) jjacob@orrick.com The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: +1 415 773 5700 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 Attorneys for Plaintiff ExamWorks, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION EXAMWORKS, a Delaware limited liability No. 2:20-cv-00920-KJM-DB company, Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER v.

TODD BALDINI, an individual, ABYGAIL BIRD, an individual, LAWRENCE STUART GIRARD, an individual, PAMELLA TEJADA, an individual, ROE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants.

1. PURPOSES & LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information, including without limitation confidential business information, financial information, competitive strategies and marketing information, and other competitive and non-public information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted due to the risks that public disclosure could, if disclosed, cause competitive harm. 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 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 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 Rule 141 and the Standing Order of the judge who will decide the matter related to a request to seal set forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designated House Counsel: House Counsel who seek access to “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information in this matter. 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that are produced in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Nothing in this order precludes a party from designating material produced by another party or a third party provided that they have a sufficient basis to do so. 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor, and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor. 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action; and whose duties and responsibilities with a party primarily concern the providing of legal advice and counsel, or otherwise concerning representing the party in a legal capacity. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 2.12 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities who are not: (i) employees of, a direct or indirect owner of, owner directly or indirectly by, or otherwise affiliated with, a party to this action, or (ii) whom otherwise do not have a pecuniary interest in the outcome in the above- captioned action; and that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium), and their employees and subcontractors. 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information (i) known to the Receiving Party and obtained outside of an employment relationship with the disclosing party and through lawful means with no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party prior to the disclosure or (ii) obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Nothing in this Protective Order shall prohibit ExamWorks from reviewing or accessing any documents produced by Defendants that is ExamWorks’ documents or information or contains or derived from ExamWorks’ documents or information. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and

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

ExamWorks, LLC v. Baldini, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

ExamWorks, LLC v. Baldini (ExamWorks, LLC v. Baldini) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)