Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 8, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-04657·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER HB: 4815-2014-07811 PLL LLEWKCALB HCSUH 21649 AC ,DNALKAO ,007 ETIUS ,.TS NOSIRRAH 9991 0560-867 )015( Case 2:21-cv-04657-SPG-PD Document 41 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:288 Edwin Aiwazian (Bar No. 232943)_ edwin@calljustice.com Arby Aiwazian (Bar No. 269827) arby@calljustice.com Tara Zabehi (Bar No. 314706) tara@calljustice.com Travis Maher (Bar No. 327206) travis@calljustice.com 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203

Attorneys for Plaintiff GRISELDA JAUREGUI

Tyler M. Paetkau (Bar No. 146305) Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com Kathy M. Huynh (Bar No. 233314) Kathy.Huynh@huschblackwell.com HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510.768.0650 Facsimile: 510.768.0651 Attorneys for Defendant ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GRISELDA JAUREGUI, individually, and CASE NO. 2:21-CV-04657-RGK-PD on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 21STCV12728 Plaintiff, Hon. Sherilyn Peace Garnett, Courtroom 5C v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; and COMPLAINT FILED: April 2, 2021 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, REMOVAL DATE: June 7, 2021 TRIAL DATE: None Set Defendants.

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue’s Procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER HB: 4815-2014-07811 PLL LLEWKCALB HCSUH 17009 AC ,SELEGNA SOL ,0051 ETIUS ,DNARG HTUOS 003 0556-733 )312( Case 2:21-cv-04657-SPG-PD Document 41 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:289 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. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 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. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential records, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 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 connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 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 of this case. C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER HB: 4815-2014-07811 PLL LLEWKCALB HCSUH 17009 AC ,SELEGNA SOL ,0051 ETIUS ,DNARG HTUOS 003 0556-733 )312( Case 2:21-cv-04657-SPG-PD Document 41 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:290 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: The instant action: Case No. 2:21-cv-04657-RGK-PD 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 the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER HB: 4815-2014-07811 PLL LLEWKCALB HCSUH 17009 AC ,SELEGNA SOL ,0051 ETIUS ,DNARG HTUOS 003 0556-733 )312( Case 2:21-cv-04657-SPG-PD Document 41 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:291 2.4 “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: CONFIDENTIAL Information of a type that is highly sensitive and competitive commercial information disclosure of which may cause substantial harm, and thus cannot be shared with individuals other than as described in this Stipulated Protective Order. 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record a

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

Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services Inc. (Griselda Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Services 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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)