Gary Wall v. Express Corporation; and Does

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 17, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-01265
StatusUnknown

This text of Gary Wall v. Express Corporation; and Does (Gary Wall v. Express Corporation; and Does) 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
Gary Wall v. Express Corporation; and Does, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY WALL, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-01265-HDV (JCx) Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE 12 Vs. Hon. HERNAN D. VERA

14 || EXPRESS CORPORATION, a PROTECTIVE ORDER 3 Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 ° ° [CHANGES MADE BY COURT 16 Defendants. TO PARAGRAPHS 3, 8, 9.3] 17 18 19 20 |} 1. INTRODUCTION 21 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 22 || involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 23 |! which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 24 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 25 SS 27 28

1 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 2 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 3 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 4 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 5 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 6 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 7 legal principles. 8 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve 9 extensive production of highly confidential medical information and 10 other valuable commercial, financial, and/or proprietary information for 11 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 12 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 13 confidential and proprietary information includes information otherwise 14 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 15 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 16 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 17 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 18 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 19 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 20 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 21 22 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 23 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 24 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 25 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 26 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 27 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 1 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 2 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 4 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 5 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 8 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 9 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 10 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 12 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 13 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 14 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 15 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 16 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 17 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 18 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 19 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 20 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 21 22 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 24 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 25 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 26 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 27 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 1 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 2 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 3 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 4 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 5 seal must be provided by declaration. 6 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 7 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 8 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 9 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 10 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 11 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 12 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 Action: Wall v. FedEx Corporation et al. 2:25-cv-01265-HDV. 15 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items under this Order. 17 18 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 19 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 20 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 22 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 23 well as their support staff). 24 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 25 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 26 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 27 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 1 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 2 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 3 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 4 responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in 6 a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 7 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 9 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment 10 herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, 11 remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for 12 filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 13 applicable law. 14 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to 15 this Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of 16 Record or any other outside counsel. 17 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 18 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 19 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees 20 of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to 21 22 this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or 23 are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, 24 and includes support staff. 25 2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, 26 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel 27 of Record (and their support staffs). 1 || Disclosure or Discovery Material 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)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gary Wall v. Express Corporation; and Does, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-wall-v-express-corporation-and-does-cacd-2025.