Hector Portaluppi v. FortiFi Financial, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 5, 2022·No. 2:20-cv-07959·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO Document 70 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1969

1 JAIKARAN SINGH, CA Bar No. 201355 jsingh@foley.com 2 NICHOLAS M. GROSS, CA Bar No. 285403 ngross@foley.com 3 MIKLE S. JEW, CA Bar No. 316372 mjew@foley.com 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 3300 5 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2418 TELEPHONE: 213.972.4500 6 FACSIMILE: 213.486.0065 7 Attorneys for Defendants FortiFi Financial, Inc. (f/k/a Energy Efficient 8 Equity, Inc.) and County of Los Angeles 9

10 JEFFREY R. KRINSK (SBN 109234) jrk@classactionlaw.com 11 DAVID J. HARRIS, JR. (SBN 286204) djh@classactionlaw.com 501 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1260 13 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 TELEPHONE: 619.238.1333 14 FACSIMILE: 619.238.5425

15 Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Classes 16 19 20 HECTOR PORTALUPPI and CARMEN Case No. 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO PORTALUPPI, Individually and On 21 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 22 Plaintiffs, Judge: Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 23 vs. Ctrm.: 10D 24 FORTIFI FINANCIAL, INC. (f/k/a ENERGY EFFICIENT EQUITY, INC.), 25 and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Case Filed: August 31, 2020 26 Defendants.

27 28 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case No. 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO 4877-8975-4132.1 Case 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO Document 70 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:1970

1 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 2 3 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 5 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 6 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 7 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 8 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 9 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 10 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 11 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 13 This action is likely to involve commercial, financial, and/or personal information 14 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 15 than litigation of this action is warranted. Such confidential and/or proprietary materials 16 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 17 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 18 commercial information, personal financial information (including information 19 implicating privacy rights of third parties), which is information otherwise generally 20 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 21 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 22 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 23 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 24 parties (or third parties) are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 25 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 26 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 27

28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially, but not entirely, based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER -1- Case No. 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO 4877-8975-4132.1 Case 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO Document 70 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:1971

1 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of 2 the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 3 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 4 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 5 public record of this case. 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 9 seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 10 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file 11 material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 14 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 15 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 16 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 17 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and 18 a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support 19 and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 20 to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 21 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 22 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 23 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 25 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 26 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 27 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 28 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER -2- Case No. 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO 4877-8975-4132.1 Case 2:20-cv-07959-FWS-RAO Document 70 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:1972

1 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 2 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 3 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 4 under seal must be provided by declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 6 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 7 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 8 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. 9 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 10 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1. Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 13 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 14 information or items under this Order. 15 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 16 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 18 Statement. 19 2.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 20 support staff). 21 2.5.

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

Hector Portaluppi v. FortiFi Financial, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Hector Portaluppi v. FortiFi Financial, Inc. (Hector Portaluppi v. FortiFi Financial, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related