Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJanuary 20, 2021
Docket2:18-cv-02993
StatusUnknown

This text of Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp. (Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp.) 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
Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp., (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

11 J. Scott Carr (SBN 136706) scarr@kcozlaw.com 22 Abigail Stecker Romero (SBN 284534) aromero@kcozlaw.com 33 KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 44 333 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 55 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 66 Attorneys for Defendant HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO 77 (erroneously sued as both “Hyatt Corporation” and “Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Hyatt Regency 88 Sacramento) 99 Galen T. Shimoda (SBN 226752) attorney@shimodalaw.com 1100 Justin P. Rodriguez (SBN 278275) jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com 1111 Shimoda Law Corp. 9401 E. Stockton Blvd., Suite 120, 1122 Elk Grove, CA 95624 1133 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 1144 Attorneys for Plaintiff Janice Insixiengmay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 1155 situated

1166 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1177

1188 JANICE INSIXIENGMAY, individually and on No. 2:18-cv-02993 TLN DB behalf of all others similarly situated, 1199 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND 2200 ORDER vs. 2211

HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware 2222 Corporation; HYATT CORPORATION DBA 2233 HYATT REGENCY SACRAMENTO, an unknown association; and DOES 1 to 100, 2244 inclusive,

2255 Defendants. 2266 2277 2288 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private 3 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 4 than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff Janice Insixiengmay 5 (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Hyatt Corporation (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby 6 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 8 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only 9 to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 10 principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Protective 11 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth 12 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 13 permission from the Court to file material under seal. 14 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 This action is likely to involve confidential employee information, trade secrets, and other 16 valuable information regarding internal, confidential, and proprietary practices and policies, for which 17 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 18 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among 19 other things, personally identifying information regarding Defendant’s employees, private financial 20 compensation records, proprietary internal documents regarding Defendant’s employment and 21 business policies, practices, and strategies, and other information regarding confidential business 22 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 23 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), which are not otherwise generally available to 24 the public, or which may be competitively sensitive, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure 25 under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 26 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 27 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 28 1 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 2 protective order for such information is justified in this matter as opposed to a private agreement 3 between or among the Parties. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 4 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 5 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not 6 be part of the public record of this case. 7 2. DEFINITIONS

8 2.1 Action: the above-entitled proceeding Case No. 2:18-cv-02993-TLN-DB. 9 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information 10 or items under this Protective Order. 11 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is 12 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 13 Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 15 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 16 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 18 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 19 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 20 discovery in this matter. 21 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 22 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant 23 in this Action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel 25 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 27 entity not named as a Party to this action. 28 1 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action 2 but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf 3 of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes 4 support staff. 5 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 6 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 7 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material 8 in this Action. 9 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., 10 photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, 11 or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 12 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 15 Producing Party. 16 3. SCOPE 17 The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover not only Protected Material (as 18 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all 19 copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 20 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 21 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This 22 Protective Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 23 4. DURATION 24 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 25 Protective Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court 26 order otherwise directs.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insixiengmay-v-hyatt-corp-caed-2021.