Gamez v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 19, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-01464·Unknown

Opinion

] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARECELY GAMEZ, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01464-DAD-CSK 2 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 (ECF No. 39) TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., 15 || INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 39), 19 || and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See L.R. 20 || 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. 21 The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain 22 || jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 23 11 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2 24 | (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain jurisdiction 25 || for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the Court will not 26 || retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. 27 || Dated: May 19, 2025 28 4, game1464.23 ( | {AR Opy GHI 500 KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ROBERT J. HERRINGTON (SBN 234417) 2 JENNIFER C. COOPER (SBN 324804) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 4 Telephone: 310-586-6575 Facsimile: 310-586-7800 5 Email: Robert.Herrington@gtlaw.com Jennifer.Cooper@gtlaw.com 6 CHRISTOPHER S. DODRILL (admitted pro hac vice) 7 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 8 Telephone: 214-665-3681 Facsimile: 214-665-3601 9 Email: Christopher.Dodrill@gtlaw.com 10 Attorneys for Defendant TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. 11 [Counsel for Plaintiffs on Signature Page] 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SACRAMENTO DIVISION

15 ARECELY GAMEZ and JEFFRY TAKILI, on CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01464-DAD-CSK behalf of themselves and all others similarly 16 situated, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 Plaintiffs, 18 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Chi Soo Kim v. 19 TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a 20 Texas corporation,

21 Defendant. 22 23 24

25 26 27 1 To expedite the flow of discovery material, facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 2 confidentiality, adequately protect material entitled to be kept confidential, and ensure that protection 3 is afforded only to material so entitled, Plaintiffs Arecely Gamez and Jeffry Takili (“Plaintiffs”) and 4 Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc. (“TMS”) (together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and 5 through their respective counsel, and pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 6 hereby stipulate and agree to the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order (hereinafter “Protective 7 Order” or “Order”). 8 1. INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of 10 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 11 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 12 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The 13 parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses 14 to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 15 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 16 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve trade secrets, valuable research, 17 design, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special 18 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 19 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 20 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, 21 or other confidential research, design, development, or commercial information (including information 22 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, 23 or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 24 rules, case decisions, common law, or any foreign privacy laws. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 25 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 26 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 27 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 1 such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 2 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 3 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 4 should not be part of the public record of this case. 5 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further acknowledge, 6 as set forth below in Section 12.3, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 7 confidential information under seal. See Hon. Dale A. Drozd Standing Order in Civil Actions, 8 https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/DAD_Civil_Standing_Order_SAC08292022.pdf. 9 United States District Court Eastern District of California Local Rules 140 and 141 sets forth the 10 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 11 from the court to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 13 records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to 14 support a filing under seal and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 15 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party 16 seeks to file under seal. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th 17 Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). 18 The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 19 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 20 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 21 privileged, or otherwise protectable constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, which does not include 23 discovery or class certification motions, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 24 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 25 protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or 26 type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with 27 a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported 1 by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 2 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration.

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

Gamez v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Gamez v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Gamez v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.) — 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)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)