Heba Ahmed v. Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions Inc

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 3, 2023
Docket8:22-cv-00366
StatusUnknown

This text of Heba Ahmed v. Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions Inc (Heba Ahmed v. Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions 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
Heba Ahmed v. Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions Inc, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-00366-CJC-JDE Document 43 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:231

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HEBA AHMED, ) Case No.: 8:22-cv-00366-CJC-JDE 11 ) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 ) v. ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ) 14 ) ORDER TRANS UNION RENTAL SCREENING ) 15 SOLUTIONS, INC. and RENTSPREE, ) ) 16 INC., ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) 19 AHMED AHMED, ) Case No. 8:22-cv-00367-CJC-JDE ) 20 ) Plaintiff, ) ) 21 ) v. ) 22 ) ) 23 TRANS UNION RENTAL SCREENING ) 24 SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., ) ) ) 25 Defendants. ) ) 26 27 Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation and for good cause shown, the Court 28 finds and orders as follows. 1 Case 8:22-cv-00366-CJC-JDE Document 43 Filed 01/03/23 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:232

1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 6 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 7 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 9 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 10 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 13 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 15 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 17 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 19 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of 20 21 third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 22 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 23 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 24 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 25 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 26 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 27 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in 28 the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 2 Case 8:22-cv-00366-CJC-JDE Document 43 Filed 01/03/23 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:233

1 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 2 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated 3 as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a 4 good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 5 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record 6 of this case. 7 3. UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 9 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 10 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 11 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 12 from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the 13 public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In 14 connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support 15 a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 16 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210- 17 11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 18 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 19 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 20 21 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 22 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 23 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does 24 not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing 25 that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 26 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 28 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 3 Case 8:22-cv-00366-CJC-JDE Document 43 Filed 01/03/23 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:234

1 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 2 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 3 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be 4 filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 5 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 6 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 7 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 9 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 10 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 11 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 12 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 13 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 14 redaction is not feasible. 15 4. DEFINITIONS 16 4.1 Action: Heba Ahmed v. Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., et 17 al.; Case No. 8:22-cv-00366-CJC-JDE consolidated with Ahmed Ahmed v. Trans 18 19 Union Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., et al.; Case No. 8:22-cv-00367-CJC-JDE 20 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 21 designation of information or items under this Order. 22 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 23 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 24 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above 25 in the Good Cause Statement. 26 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 27 their support staff). 28 4 Case 8:22-cv-00366-CJC-JDE Document 43 Filed 01/03/23 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:235

1 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 2 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery 3 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 4 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 5 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 6 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 7 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 8 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 9 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel 10 to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 11 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 12 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)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Heba Ahmed v. Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heba-ahmed-v-trans-union-rental-screening-solutions-inc-cacd-2023.