In Re: Ring LLC Privacy Litigation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 16, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-10899
StatusUnknown

This text of In Re: Ring LLC Privacy Litigation (In Re: Ring LLC Privacy Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Ring LLC Privacy Litigation, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 Master File No.: 2:19-cv-10899- IN RE: RING LLC PRIVACY MWF (RAOx) 12 LITIGATION

13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE This Document Relates To: ORDER 14 All Actions Hon. Rozella A. Oliver, presiding 15

17 18 Pursuant to a stipulation by and between the Parties1 and through their respective 19 counsel of record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, to the extent any discovery is allowed 20 in this consolidated action, to provide special protection for the discovery and disclosure 21 of confidential, non-public, sensitive, and/or proprietary business, employment, 22 financial, personal, medical, and tax information, documents and other materials: 23 A. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 25 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 26

27 1 As used herein, “Party” means the individual Plaintiffs and Defendant named in the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) (Doc 1 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 2 warranted. Moreover, the information likely to be the subject of disclosures and 3 discovery involves unique risks related to privacy, data security, and data 4 management that will likely be greater than in most cases. Accordingly, the parties 5 hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 6 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections 7 on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 8 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 9 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties 10 further acknowledge, as set forth below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does 11 not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets 12 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 13 a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. The parties further 14 acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to seek any 15 discovery, or constitute an admission by Defendant that any disclosures and/or 16 discovery are permitted in this action. 17 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 This action is likely to involve personally identifying information, data security 19 information, trade secrets, other valuable research, development, commercial, 20 financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 21 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action 22 is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information are not 23 otherwise generally available to the public, and may be privileged or otherwise 24 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 25 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 26 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 27 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 1 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 2 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 3 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 4 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 5 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 6 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 7 case. 8 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 9 SEAL 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section N.4, below, that this 11 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 12 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 13 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 14 to file material under seal. 15 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 16 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 17 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal, see Kamakana v. City and 18 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 19 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 20 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 21 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 22 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 23 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 24 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 25 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 26 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 27 protectable—constitute good cause. 1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 2 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 3 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 4 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 5 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 6 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or any trial, the party seeking 7 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 8 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 9 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 11 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 12 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 13 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall 14 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 15 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 16 B. DEFINITIONS 17 1. Action: this pending federal lawsuit and all consolidated actions. 18 2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 19 of information or items under this Order. 20 3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 21 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 22 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 23 Cause Statement. 24 4. “CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH INFORMATION”: information 25 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) that a Party (or Parties) 26 determine might contain sensitive personal health information. CONFIDENTIAL 27 HEALTH INFORMATION is also intended to encompass any individual health 1 information protected by state or federal law, including, but not limited to, Protected 2 Health Information as defined below. 3 a. Protected Health Information: Protected Health Information, as 4 used herein, has the same scope and definition as set forth in 45 C.F.R.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Byrne v. Gunning
23 A. 1 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1891)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Ring LLC Privacy Litigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ring-llc-privacy-litigation-cacd-2021.