Hicks v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMarch 8, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-00676
StatusUnknown

This text of Hicks v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Hicks v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hicks v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BREANA HICKS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00676-JLT-EPG

10 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

11 v. (ECF No. 21).

12 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.

13 Defendant.

15 1. INTRODUCTION 16 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 17 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private 18 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 19 than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and 20 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that 21 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 22 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 23 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties 24 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file 25 Confidential Information under seal; The Judge’s procedures sets forth the procedures that must be 26 followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the Court to file 27 material under seal. 1 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 Good cause exists for the parties to enter into this stipulated protective order to prevent the 3 public dissemination of Defendant’s confidential business information, and the personal financial 4 information of the Plaintiff. The stipulated protective order is necessary to allow the parties to 5 exchange information for the purposes of this litigation regarding Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant 6 called Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 7 Parties anticipate that current written discovery and future discovery will involve inquiry 8 into Defendant’s policies and procedures concerning its processes for placing and stopping phone 9 calls to individuals, its own internal compliance procedures related to the Fair Debt Collection 10 Practices Act, and related statutes, and other confidential business information. The before 11 mentioned confidential business information is the appropriate subject of a protective order. (See S2 12 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 681 (D.N.M. 2012) (The disclosure of trade 13 secrets, sensitive commercial information, and information that gives a competitive advantage are 14 proper subjects of a protective order.); Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 114 (E.D. Pa. 1994) 15 (The subject matter of confidential business information is broad, including a wide variety of 16 business information.).) If forced to reveal the aforementioned information, Defendant will be 17 subjected to a competitive disadvantage by being forced to reveal its compliance procedures which 18 give it a marked competitive advantage to its competitors as well as other confidential information 19 vital to its operation. 20 Additionally, the protective order is necessary to allow for the personal financial information 21 of the Plaintiff to be disclosed and discussed without harm to the Plaintiff. The protection of the 22 personal financial information of a Plaintiff constitutes good cause. (Horowitz v. GC Servs. Ltd. 23 P'ship, No. 14cv2512-MMA RBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172359, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016).) 24 For the forgoing reasons, good cause exists for this protective order. 25 2. DEFINITIONS 26 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 27 1 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation of 2 information or items under this Order. 3 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 4 generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 5 of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 6 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 7 staff). 8 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Nonparty that designates information or items that it 9 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 11 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 12 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 13 discovery in this matter. 14 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 15 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 16 consultant in this action. 17 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. House 18 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 19 2.9 Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 20 entity not named as a Party to this action. 21 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a Party to this 22 Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party and have appeared in this Action on behalf of 23 that Party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that Party, including support 24 staff. 25 2.11 Party: any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 26 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 27 1 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or Discovery 2 Material in this Action. 3 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (for 4 example, photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and 5 organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and 6 subcontractors. 7 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 8 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 10 Producing Party. 11 3. SCOPE 12 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material 13 (as defined above) but also any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; all copies, 14 excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and any testimony, conversations, or 15 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 16 Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This 17 Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 18 4. DURATION 19 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 20 Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order 21 otherwise directs. Final disposition is the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this 22 Action, with or without prejudice, or (2) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all 23 appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing 24 any motions or applications for extension of time under applicable law. 25 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 26 5.1 Each Party or Nonparty that designates information or items for protection under this 27 Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the 1 appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of 2 material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of 3 the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not 4 swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.

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

Related

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.
283 F.R.D. 671 (D. New Mexico, 2012)
Miles v. Boeing Co.
154 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hicks v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-midland-credit-management-inc-caed-2023.