Hughes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 5, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-00949·Unknown

Opinion

Christina R. Manalo, SBN 297718 JML LAW, A Professional Law Corporation 5855 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 818-610-8800 Facsimile: 818-610-3030 Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHELLE HUGHES JAMES T. CONLEY Bar No. 224174 james.conley@ogletree.com HAIDY RIVERA Bar No. 322117 haidy.rivera@ogletree.com STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Attorneys for Defendant EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHELLE HUGHES, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-00949-JLT-BAM

Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] AGREED vs. CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Action Filed: May 24, 2023 Defendants. Removal Filed: June 23, 2023 Trial Date: September 9, 2025

AGREED CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER The parties have agreed to and have submitted to the Court, and for good cause shown the Court hereby enters, the following Confidentiality Order: 1. This Order shall govern the disclosure of materials designated as Confidential Material in this litigation. Confidential Material, as used in this Order, shall refer to any document or item designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only, including but not limited to, documents or items produced during discovery, all copies thereof, and the information contained in such material. Nothing in this Order shall require any party to produce any specific documents or category of documents which a party deems inappropriate for production. Definitions of Confidential Material 2. Confidential Material, as used in this Order, consists of the following materials and categories of materials: a. Materials relating to any privileged, confidential, or nonpublic information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets, research, design, development, financial, technical, marketing, planning, personal, or commercial information, as such terms are used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ.) and any applicable case law interpreting Fed. R. Civ. 26(c)(1)(G); contracts; non-public compilations of retail prices; proprietary information; vendor agreements; personnel files; claim/litigation information; and nonpublic policies and procedures shall be deemed Confidential. b. Materials containing corporate trade secrets, nonpublic research and development data, including, but not limited to, cost data, pricing formulas, inventory management programs, and other sales or business information not known to the public; information obtained from a non-party pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement; and customer-related Protected Data shall be deemed Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only. c. Protected Data shall refer to any information that a party believes in good faith to be subject to federal, state or foreign data protection laws or other privacy obligations. Examples of such data protection laws include but are not limited to The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq. (financial information); and, The Health Insurance CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164 (medical information). Certain Protected Data may compel alternative or additional protections beyond those afforded Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only material, in which event the parties shall meet and confer in good faith, and, if unsuccessful, shall move the Court for appropriate relief. The parties shall not designate as confidential information that is already public knowledge. 3. The parties agree that such Confidential Material as described in paragraph 2 should be given the protection of an order of this Court to prevent injury through disclosure to persons other than those persons involved in the prosecution or defense of this litigation. Procedure for Designating Information as Confidential 4. To designate information as confidential, the producing party shall mark Confidential Material with the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Parties shall submit confidential discovery responses, such as answers to interrogatories or answers to requests for admissions, in a separate document stamped with the appropriate legend designating those responses as Confidential Material. The Receiving Party may make copies of Confidential Material and such copies shall become subject to the same protections as the Confidential Material from which those copies were made. a. Information on a disk or other electronic format (e.g., a native format production) may be designated confidential by marking the storage medium itself (or the native file’s title) with the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” The Receiving Party shall mark any hard-copy printouts and the storage medium of any permissible copies of such electronic material with the corresponding legend contained on the original and such copies shall become subject to the same protections, as the Confidential Material from which those copies were made. b. Information disclosed at any deposition of a party taken in this action may be designated by the party as confidential by indicating on the record at the deposition that the information is confidential and subject to the provisions of this Order. Alternatively, the party may designate information disclosed at the deposition as confidential by notifying the court reporter and other parties in writing, within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the transcript, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript which are designated as confidential. The parties may agree to a reasonable extension of the 15-business-day period for designation. Designations of transcripts will apply to audio, video, or other recordings of the testimony. During such 15-business-day period, the entire transcript shall receive confidential treatment. Upon such designation, the court reporter and each party shall affix the “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” legend to the designated pages and segregate them as appropriate. 5. A producing party may change the confidentiality designation of materials it has produced, as follows: (1) The producing party must give the receiving parties notice of the change by identifying the documents or information at issue. Once notice is given, the receiving party must make good-faith efforts to ensure that the documents or information are accorded treatment under the new designation. (2) Within a reasonable period after giving notice, the producing party must reproduce the documents or information in a format that contains the new designation. (3) If such information has been disclosed to persons not qualified pursuant to paragraphs 12-13 below, the party who disclosed such information shall (a) take reasonable efforts to retrieve previously disclosed Confidential Material; (b) advise such persons that the material is Confidential; and (c) give the producing party written assurance that steps (a) and (b) have been completed. /// Data Security 6. The Parties agree to provide adequate security to protect data produced by the other party(ies) or by non-parties. This includes secure data storage systems, established security policies, and security training for employees, contractors and experts. Adequate security also includes such measures as data encryption in transit, data encryption at rest, data access controls, and physical security, whether hosted/outsourced to a vendor or on premises. At a minimum, any receiving party subject to the terms of this Confidentiality Order, will provide reasonable measures to protect non- client data consistent with the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 477R. Clawback Provisions 7. T

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

Hughes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Hughes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (Hughes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.) — 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)