Heitkoetter v. Domm

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 16, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-00368·Unknown

Opinion

1 A N asD teR bbE iW ns @C. b S dT blE aB wB .cI oN mS (Pro Hac Vice – OH#0086387) BUCKINGHAM, DOOLITTLE & BURROUGHS LLC 2 1375 E. 9th Street, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 3 Telephone: (216) 736-4233

4 MAX N. WELLMAN (State Bar No. 291814) 5 mwellman@venable.com VENABLE LLP 6 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, California 90067 7 Telephone: (310) 229-9900

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARKUS 9 HEITKOETTER and ROCKWELL TRADING SERVICES, LLC 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

13 MARKUS HEITKOETTER, an individual and Case No. 1:22-cv-00368-AWI-BAM 14 ROCKWELL TRADING SERVICES, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 Plaintiffs, 16 vs. 17 Judge: Hon. Anthony W. Ishii KARL DOMM, an individual, Courtroom: 2, 8th Floor 18 Date: June 27, 2022 Defendant. Time: 1:30 p.m. 19

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 AND NOW, this 16th day of February 2023, this Court enters the following Protective 2 Order. 3 1. No party, either personally or through their agents or attorneys, shall publish to 4 the Internet any “Disclosure or Discovery Material,” a term which shall mean for purposes of 5 this Order any documents or information that is generated, produced or disclosed in disclosures 6 7 or discovery of this matter. The purpose of this Paragraph is to prevent the parties from 8 publishing documents or information that would not be in the possession or knowledge of the 9 parties but for the production or disclosure of the same in the course of disclosure or discovery 10 in this litigation. This Order does not prohibit the publication of information or documents of 11 which a party has knowledge of or is in possession of from a source independent of disclosures 12 or discovery of this matter, so long as such publication does not reference or allude to the use or 13 disclosure of said information or documents in the course of disclosures or discovery in this 14 15 matter. For purposes of this Order, a party will be in violation of this Paragraph if he/she/they 16 provide Disclosure or Discovery Material to a third party and direct or induce said third-party 17 to publish the Disclosure or Discovery Material to the Internet. For purposes of this Order, the 18 phrase “publish to the Internet” shall have its ordinary meaning and expressly be inclusive of, 19 but not limited to, a party’s publication of Disclosure or Discovery Material to social media 20 websites, such as YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, or any other social media website which any 21 22 party or their agents or attorneys is a user, as well as the re-posting or sharing of content 23 originally published by third-parties. If any party believes that content published by another 24 party (“Publishing Party”) violates this Paragraph, the attorneys for the parties shall meet and 25 confer within a reasonable time in an effort to resolve any disputes, prior to seeking the Court’s 26 involvement. This provision shall remain in effect until the conclusion of the proceedings in this 27 matter. 1 2. Any party that produces discovery material in this action (“Producing Party”) 2 may designate as “Confidential” (by marking the relevant page(s) or items with the text 3 “CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER”) any document or response to 4 discovery which the Producing Party believes in good faith to meet the following definition of 5 “Confidential Information”: (1) the information consists of (i) personal identifying information 6 including social security numbers, financial account numbers, dates of birth, physical addresses, 7 account login information, personal income, current employer(s), unlisted telephone numbers, 8 and other information which provides details about a Party’s personal life; (ii) information that 9 10 constitutes proprietary financial or technical, competitive, or commercially sensitive 11 information that the Producing Party maintains as highly confidential in its business, and which 12 has significant competitive value such that unrestricted disclosure to others would create a 13 substantial risk of serious financial injury; or (iii) any document that refers, relates or evidences 14 medical information, including but not limited to medical provider impressions, records, 15 prescriptions, medical insurance documentation and records, and other non-billing information, 16 and, for purposes of this definition it is expressly understood that the term “medical information” 17 18 is inclusive of information related to mental health care or counselling, and “medical provider” 19 shall include any and all mental health professionals, such as psychologists, licensed social 20 workers, licensed clinical counsellors, licensed family therapists, and any and all other types of 21 mental health providers. Where a document or response consists of more than one page, the first 22 page and each page on which confidential information appears shall be so designated 23 information. 24 25 3. A Producing Party may designate information disclosed during a deposition or 26 in response to written discovery as “Confidential” by so indicating in said response or on the 27 record at the deposition and requesting the preparation of a separate transcript of such material. 1 of said responses or of the deposition transcript for which the designation is proposed, or within 2 5 days of the entry of this Order, whichever is later, that specific pages of the transcript and/or 3 specific responses be treated as Confidential Information. Any other party may object to such 4 proposal, in writing or on the record. Upon such objection, the parties shall follow the procedures 5 described in Paragraph 7 below. After any designation made according to the procedure set forth 6 in this paragraph, the designated documents or information shall be treated according to the 7 designation until the matter is resolved according to the procedures described in Paragraph 7 8 below, and counsel for all parties shall be responsible for marking all previously unmarked 9 10 copies of the designated material in their possession or control with the specified designation. 11 In addition to that which is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE 12 ORDER” in a deposition transcript, including exhibits thereto, deposition transcripts themselves 13 shall not be published in any media absent written agreement of the parties or Order of Court. 14 4. Except with the prior written consent of other parties, or upon prior order of this 15 Court obtained upon notice to opposing counsel, Confidential Information shall not be disclosed 16 to any person other than: 17 18 a) Persons who appear on the face of Designated Discovery Material as an 19 author, addressee, or recipient thereof; 20 b) Counsel of Record; 21 c) Outside Consultants of the Receiving Party to whom disclosure is 22 reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the “Certification” 23 attached hereto as Exhibit A; 24 25 d) Witnesses at deposition and/or trial, provided that such witnesses may not 26 retain copies of Designated Discovery Material unless permitted by other provisions 27 of this Order; 1 f) Any designated arbitrator or mediator who is assigned to hear this matter, 2 and his or her staff, who have signed the “Certification” attached hereto as “Exhibit 3 A”; 4 g) Court reporters and videographers; and 5 h) Professional Vendors to which disclosure is reasonably necessary for this 6 litigation and a representative of which has signed the “Certification” attached hereto 7 as “Exhibit A”. 8 9 5. Any persons receiving Confidential Information shall not reveal or discuss such 10 information to or with any person who is not entitled to receive such information, except as set 11 forth herein. 12 6.

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

Heitkoetter v. Domm, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Heitkoetter v. Domm (Heitkoetter v. Domm) — 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)