Genevieve Morton v. Twitter, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 16, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-10434
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 BRIAN M. WILLEN (pro hac vice) 2 bwillen@wsgr.com WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

3 Professional Corporation 4 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019-6022 5 Telephone: (212) 999-5800 6 Facsimile: (212) 999-5899

7 VICTOR JIH, State Bar No. 186515 vjih@wsgr.com 8 REBECCA E. DAVIS, State Bar No. 322765 becca.davis@wsgr.com 9 EVE A. ZELINGER, State Bar No. 328862 ezelinger@wsgr.com 10 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 11 P 63ro 3f e Wss ei so tn Fa il f C tho Srp tro er ea tt ,i o Sn u ite 1550

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

13 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329

14 Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 WESTERN DIVISION 18

GENEVIEVE MORTON, ) Case No. 2:20-cv-10434-GW-JEM 19 an individual, ) 20 ) [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ) v. ) ORDER 21 ) TWITTER, INC., ) DISCOVERY MATTER 22 a Delaware corporation, et. al, ) ) 23 Defendants. ) Hon. John E. McDermott ) 24 ) ) 25 )

27 28 1 Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) hereby requests that this Court enter the

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

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

4 California’s form protective order:

5 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

6 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential,

7 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure

8 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.

9 This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to

10 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends

11 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment

12 under the applicable legal principles.

13 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 This action is likely to involve confidential user data and information, as well 15 as valuable financial and/or proprietary information for which special protection 16 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 17 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 18 consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, 19 information regarding confidential business practices, information regarding 20 confidential user data, or other confidential commercial information (including 21 information implicating the privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 22 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged other otherwise 23 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 24 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 25 prompt resolution of disputes of confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 26 protect information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 27 Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 28 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 1 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this

2 matter. Information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that

3 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a

4 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of

5 the public record in this case.

6 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 7 As set forth in Section 12.3, below, this Protective Order does not entitle them 8 to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the 9 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 10 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 11 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records 12 in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown 13 to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 14 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210- 15 11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. 16 Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a 17 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary 18 support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 19 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 20 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 21 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed 22 under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute 23 good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 24 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 25 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 26 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 27 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 28 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 1 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for

2 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to

3 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not

4 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under

5 seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then

6 a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 7 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that 8 seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 9 why redaction is not feasible. 10 2. DEFINITIONS 11 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 13 of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 16 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 17 Cause Statement. 18 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 19 their support staff). 20 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 21 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 22 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 23 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 24 of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 25 things, testimony, transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced or generated in 26 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 27 28 1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter

2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as

3 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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Genevieve Morton v. Twitter, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genevieve-morton-v-twitter-inc-cacd-2021.