Guillermina Ibarra Soto v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 23, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00981
StatusUnknown

This text of Guillermina Ibarra Soto v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al. (Guillermina Ibarra Soto v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.) 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
Guillermina Ibarra Soto v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP JUDD A. GILEFSKY, SB# 198694 2 E-Mail: Judd.Gilefsky@lewisbrisbois.com SCOTT D. SHARP, SB# 334782 3 E-Mail: Scott.Sharp@lewisbrisbois.com JUSTIN TENG, SB# 357692 4 E-Mail: Justin.Teng@lewisbrisbois.com 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 5 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: 213.250.1800 | Fax: 213.250.7900 6 Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN 7 NORTH AMERICA, INC.

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 GUILLERMINA IBARRA SOTO, Case No. 5:25-cv-00981-SSS-DTB

13 Plaintiff, Assigned to: Hon. Sunshine Suzanne Sykes Magistrate Judge: David T. Bristow 14 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al. 16 Defendant. 17 Trial Date: September 14, 2026 18 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 21 and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. 22 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to, and petition the Court to enter, the 23 following Stipulated Protective Order pursuant to Local Rule 141.1. The parties 24 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or 25 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 26 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 27 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 The plaintiff in this action seeks information, records, and communications 3 regarding confidential materials, including but not limited to: Nissan North America 4 Inc.’s internal policies and procedures related to “Lemon Law”, consumer 5 information, and consumer complaints. This action is likely to involve trade secrets, 6 research, design, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 7 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 8 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 9 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 10 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 11 practices, or other confidential research, development of technology, or commercial 12 information (including information that may implicate privacy rights of third parties), 13 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 14 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 15 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 16 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 17 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 18 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 19 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 20 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 21 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 22 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 23 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 24 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 25 case. 26 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 1 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 2 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 3 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to 4 judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 5 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 6 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 8 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 9 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 10 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 11 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 12 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 13 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 14 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 15 cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 18 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 19 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 20 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 21 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 22 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 23 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 24 declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 26 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 27 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 1 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 2 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 4. DEFINITIONS 4 4.1 Action: Guillermina Ibarra Soto v. Nissan North America, Inc. United 5 States District Court, Central District of California, , Civil Action No. 5:25-cv- 6 00981-SSS-DTB. 7 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 8 information or items under this Order. 9 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 10 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 11 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 12 Cause Statement. 13 4.4 Counsel: The Parties respective counsel of record (as well as their support 14 staff). 15 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 16 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 19 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 20 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 21 disclosures or responses to discovery. 22 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 23 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 24 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 25 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 26 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 27 counsel. 1 other legal entity not named as a Party to 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Guillermina Ibarra Soto v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillermina-ibarra-soto-v-nissan-north-america-inc-et-al-cacd-2025.