Genevieve Morton v. Twitter, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 16, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-10434·Unknown

Opinion

BRIAN M. WILLEN (pro hac vice) bwillen@wsgr.com WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019-6022 Telephone: (212) 999-5800 Facsimile: (212) 999-5899

VICTOR JIH, State Bar No. 186515 vjih@wsgr.com REBECCA E. DAVIS, State Bar No. 322765 becca.davis@wsgr.com EVE A. ZELINGER, State Bar No. 328862 ezelinger@wsgr.com P 63ro 3f e Wss ei so tn Fa il f C tho Srp tro er ea tt ,i o Sn u ite 1550

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027 Telephone: (323) 210-2900

Facsimile: (866) 974-7329

Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

GENEVIEVE MORTON, ) Case No. 2:20-cv-10434-GW-JEM an individual, ) ) [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ) v. ) ORDER ) TWITTER, INC., ) DISCOVERY MATTER a Delaware corporation, et. al, ) ) Defendants. ) Hon. John E. McDermott ) ) ) )

Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) hereby requests that this Court enter the

following Protective Order (“Order”) governing the production and use of

confidential information, which is based substantially on the Central District of

California’s form protective order:

1. A. 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.

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.

This action is likely to involve confidential user data and information, as well as valuable financial 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 or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, information regarding confidential user data, or other confidential commercial information (including information implicating the privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged other 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 of 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. 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 in this case.

As set forth in Section 12.3, below, this 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 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 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “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), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, or 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 has been retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as

an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action.

House Counsel does not include any Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside

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

Genevieve Morton v. Twitter, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Genevieve Morton v. Twitter, Inc. (Genevieve Morton v. Twitter, 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)
United States v. John W. Kelly
14 F.3d 1169 (Seventh Circuit, 1994)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)