Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedApril 24, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00596
StatusUnknown

This text of Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company (Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JASON GREGORIO, THOMAS VALENTINE, LEO MCGOWAN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00596-LK 10 VINCELLE CALICA, RAYMOND CALICA, AND TAMARA COWLES, individually and STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 11 on behalf of all others similarly situated,

12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 19 private information for which special protection may be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 20 Defendant (collectively the “Parties” and singularly each a “Party”) hereby stipulate to and petition 21 the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (the “Order”). The Parties acknowledge 22 that this Order is consistent with LCR 26(c). It does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures 23 or responses to discovery, the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to 24 the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 25 legal principles, and it does not presumptively entitle Parties to file confidential information under 26 1 seal. The term “documents” as used herein shall have the same meaning and scope as set forth in 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). After entry of this Protective Order, any documents, testimony, or 3 information to be designated as Confidential or Restricted Confidential must be clearly so 4 designated before the document, testimony, or information is disclosed or produced, as provided 5 herein. 6 2. “CONFIDENTIAL” MATERIAL 7 2.1 Any Party may designate a document as “Confidential” upon making a good-faith 8 determination that the documents contain, reflect, or disclose: (1) material non-public information 9 that is treated by the designating Party as confidential and/or commercially sensitive and of 10 proprietary nature; (2) information that the designating Party believes should be maintained in 11 confidence to protect its business or commercial interests that is not publicly available; (3) any 12 information the release of which the designating Party believes may increase risk to the 13 confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the information technology infrastructure or assets of 14 any entity, including without limitation, cybersecurity policies, security risk assessments, and 15 security test results; or (4) any aggregation of information in categories (1) through (3). 16 2.2 “Restricted Confidential” Material. 17 Materials designated as Restricted Confidential shall mean materials, including documents 18 and testimony, that are not public or do not reflect publicly available information, the disclosure 19 of which would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive 20 means and that have not already been shared with the receiving Party. 21 Any Party may designate documents as Restricted Confidential upon making a good-faith 22 determination: (1) that the documents contain, reflect, or disclose information protected from 23 disclosure by statute or that should be protected from disclosure as trade secrets, highly sensitive 24 proprietary information, highly sensitive manufacturing procedures, highly sensitive competitive 25 or confidential financial information, or other highly sensitive business information, and (2) the 26 disclosure of such information is likely to cause significant harm to the business or competitive 1 position of the designating Party. 2 3. SCOPE 3 The protections conferred by this agreement cover not only Confidential or Restricted 4 Confidential material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from 5 Confidential or Restricted Confidential material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 6 compilations of Confidential or Restricted Confidential material; and (3) any testimony, 7 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their counsel that might reveal Confidential or 8 Restricted Confidential material. 9 However, the protections conferred by this agreement do not cover information that is in 10 the public domain or becomes part of the public domain through trial, unless such information 11 enters the public domain as a result of a breach of this Order. 12 4. ACCESS TO AND USE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL 13 4.1 Basic Principles. A receiving Party may use Confidential or Restricted Confidential 14 material that is disclosed or produced by another Party or by a non-party in connection with this 15 case only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation. Confidential or 16 Restricted Confidential material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the 17 conditions described in this Order. Confidential and Restricted Confidential material must be 18 stored and maintained by a receiving Party at a location and in a secure manner that ensures that 19 access is limited to the persons authorized under this Order. 20 Nothing in this stipulated protective order will bar outside counsel from rendering advice 21 to their clients with respect to this litigation, including by relying upon any information designated 22 as Confidential or Restricted Confidential, provided that the contents of the information are not 23 disclosed except as permitted by this Order. Further, the restrictions or obligations of this Order 24 will not be deemed to prohibit discussion of any confidential material with anyone if that person 25 already has or obtains legitimate possession of that information. 26 4.2 Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered 1 by the court, a receiving Party may disclose any Confidential material only to: 2 (a) the receiving Party’s counsel of record in this action, as well as employees 3 of counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation, 4 provided that such employees are instructed to and do abide by the restrictions of this Stipulated 5 Protective Order; 6 (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including in house counsel) of the 7 receiving Party but only to assist outside counsel with the preparation of the prosecution or defense 8 of this litigation; 9 (c) Experts and consultants to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this 10 litigation, but only after such persons have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be 11 Bound” (Exhibit A); independent consultants or experts provided that disclosure is only to the 12 extent necessary to perform such work, under the conditions set forth in this paragraph. Such expert 13 or consultant must sign the Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound (Exhibit A) and must 14 access the materials in the United States only. The Parties agree that Confidential Material may be 15 disclosed to a consultant or expert only if the consultant or expert (1) is not a current employee or 16 consultant of a designating Party, (2) is not a current officer, director, or employee of any 17 competitor of a Party, and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an officer, 18 director, or employee of any competitor of a designating Party. For the avoidance of doubt, any 19 expert or consultant retained by a Party cannot be involved in competitive decision making as 20 defined by U.S. Steel v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. Cir.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gregorio v. Green Diamond Resource Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregorio-v-green-diamond-resource-company-wawd-2025.