Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 26, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-06665
StatusUnknown

This text of Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation (Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation) 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
Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

2 3

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GRISELDA ORELLANA, an CASE NO. 2:20-cv-06665 SVW(KSx) 11 individual, 12 District Judge: Stephen V. Wilson Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge: Karen L. Stevenson 13 Courtroom 10A 14 vs. 15 TARGET CORPORATION, a [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 16 business entity; and DOES l through PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 100, inclusive,

18 Defendants. 19 Complaint Filed: April 20, 2020 20 21 22 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 24 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 25 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 26 the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 27 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 28 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 1 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 2 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, pricing lists and other valuable 5 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information 6 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 7 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 8 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 9 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 10 research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating 11 privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the 12 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state 13 or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 14 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 15 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 16 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary 17 uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 18 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for 19 such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 20 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 21 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non- 22 public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of 23 this case. 24 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 25 SEAL 26 This Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle the parties to file confidential 27 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 28 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 1 court to file material under seal. 2 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 3 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 4 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 5 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 6 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 7 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 8 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 9 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 10 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 11 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 12 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 13 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 14 cause. 15 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 16 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 17 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 18 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 19 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 20 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 21 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 22 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 23 under seal must be provided by declaration. 24 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 25 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 26 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 27 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 28 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 1 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2 2. DEFINITIONS 3 2.1 Action: Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation (Case No. 2:20-cv- 4 06665). 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 6 information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 8 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 10 Statement. This Order is meant to encompass all forms of disclosure which may contain 11 Confidential Material, including all documents, pleadings, motions, exhibits, 12 declarations, affidavits, deposition transcripts, inspection reports, and all other tangible 13 items (electronic media, photographs, video cassettes, etc.). For purposes of this 14 Stipulated Protective Order Confidential Material is specifically defined as follows: 1) 15 Guest Incident Report, 2) Target Surveillance Videos, 3) Insurance Declarations, and 4) 16 Photographs of the Scene of the Incident. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 22 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 23 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 24 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 26 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 27 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 28 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 1 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Silk v. Sieling
7 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Griselda Orellana v. Target Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griselda-orellana-v-target-corporation-cacd-2021.