Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 20, 2021·No. 2:18-cv-02993·Unknown

Opinion

J. Scott Carr (SBN 136706) scarr@kcozlaw.com Abigail Stecker Romero (SBN 284534) aromero@kcozlaw.com 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

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 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. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is 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, Plaintiff Janice Insixiengmay (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Hyatt Corporation (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Protective 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 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 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. This action is likely to involve confidential employee information, trade secrets, and other valuable information regarding internal, confidential, and proprietary practices and policies, for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, personally identifying information regarding Defendant’s employees, private financial compensation records, proprietary internal documents regarding Defendant’s employment and business policies, practices, and strategies, and other information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), which are not otherwise generally available to the public, or which may be competitively sensitive, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter as opposed to a private agreement between or among the Parties. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2. DEFINITIONS

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

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

Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp. (Insixiengmay v. Hyatt Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)