Huggins v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 22, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-01526·Unknown

Opinion

MATTHEW HUGGINS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01526-DAD-BAK Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF v. PROTECTIVE ORDER AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 41). Defendants. On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff Matthew Huggins and Defendants Amazon.com Services, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. filed a stipulation for entry of protective order. (ECF No. 41). Because most of the provisions are acceptable, the stipulation will be granted, in part. However, the Court will modify the proposed protective order to comply with Local Rule (LR) 141.1(c)(1). Specifically, LR 141.1(c)(1) requires that every proposed protective order contain “[a] description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child).” Here, the parties have included descriptions that, in general terms, satisfy LR 141.1(c)(1). For example, the parties state that the types of information eligible for protection include “Plaintiff's medical records; Plaintiff's personnel records containing information which is private pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution; communications and documents related to Plaintiffs termination and his termination appeal.” (ECF No. 41, p. 4). However, the parties also stipulate to a definition of “Confidential Information or Items” as “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that are in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is g | entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law.” (ECF No. 41, p. 3). Further, the parties g | State that information eligible for protection includes “any related information which is in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is entitled to i confidential treatment under applicable law.” (ECF No. 41, p. 4). These sections of the parties’ D agreement, which provide for a category of eligible information under the protective order as based upon a Designating Party’s good faith belief that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law, will be stricken because they allow the parties to deem additional information as confidential under the protective order without them having provided a general description of such information as required by LR 141.1(c)(1). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation for entry of protective order M7 (ECF No. 41) is granted, in part, to the extent that the Court approves the agreement as modified below. IT IS SO ORDERED. . . Dated: _ August 22, 2022 [Je hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, Defendants Amazon.com Services LLC1 and Amazon.com, Inc. (collectively “Amazon” or “Defendant”) and Plaintiff Matthew Huggins (“Plaintiff”) (collectively, “the parties”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. As detailed in Paragraph 3, this Protective Order will provide protection for materials in which the Plaintiff or third parties have a legally cognizable privacy interest, such as medical records, employees’ personnel records, and documents reflecting disciplinary action taken towards employees. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are in the possession of a designating party who believes in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that are in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law. 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts and investigators, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. /// 3. SCOPE The types of information eligible for protection under this Stipulation and Order include the following: Plaintiff’s medical records; Plaintiff’s personnel records containing information which is private pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution; communications and documents related to Plaintiff’s termination and his termination appeal; and any related information which is in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law. Courts have routinely recognized a legally cognizable privacy interest in records of this nature. See e.g., Doe v. A. J. Boggs & Co., No. 118CV01464AWIBAM, 2019 WL 1517567, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) (citing Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 440 (1996)) (ordering discovery of Plaintiffs’ medical information as subj

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

Huggins v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Huggins v. Amazon.com Services, LLC (Huggins v. Amazon.com Services, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pettus v. Cole
49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (California Court of Appeal, 1996)