James Copeland v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedNovember 5, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00445
StatusUnknown

This text of James Copeland v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive (James Copeland v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive) 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
James Copeland v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Douglas E. Dexter (State Bar No. 115868) ddexter@fbm.com 2 Kevin L. Jones (State Bar No. 324068) kjones@fbm.com 3 Benjamin R. Buchwalter (State Bar No. 301130) bbuchwalter@fbm.com 4 Margaret J.C. Salisbury (State Bar No. 354442) msalisbury@fbm.com 5 Farella Braun + Martel LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 6 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 7 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480

8 Attorneys for Defendant AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 12 13 JAMES COPELAND, Case No. 2:25-cv-0445-TLN-JDP

14 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 vs. Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson 16 AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM Courtroom 9, 13th Floor SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, 17 inclusive, Trial Date: None Set.

18 Defendants.

22 23 24 25 26 27 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff James Copeland (“Plaintiff”) and 2 Defendants AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC (collectively 3 “Defendants”) (collectively “the parties”), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby 4 stipulate for the purpose of jointly requesting that the honorable Court enter a protective order 5 regarding confidential documents and information in this matter (and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as, U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Cal. Local Rule 141, 141.1, 143, and 251) as 7 follows: 8 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 9 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve the production of 10 confidential, proprietary, sensitive, and/or private information that has not been disseminated to 11 the public, which is not readily discoverable by competitors, and has been the subject of 12 reasonable efforts by the parties to maintain its secrecy. Such information warrants special 13 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this 14 litigation. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to the following Stipulated Protective Order, 15 which, among other things, identifies categories of “CONFIDENTIAL” information and items, 16 and how the parties may use and disclose such information and items. Pursuant to Local Rule 17 141.1(c)(3), the Parties request that this Court “So Order” the following Stipulated Protective 18 Order to ensure that the parties have sufficient recourse if they cannot resolve a dispute amongst 19 themselves; need to modify any terms of this Order; and/or if a third party violates the terms of 20 this Order. 21 The parties acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket 22 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 23 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 24 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 25 set forth in Paragraph 13.4, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 26 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must 27 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to 1 A. Good Cause Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 3 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 6 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on 7 all disclosures or responses to discovery, and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 8 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 9 under applicable legal principles. The parties recognize that, generally, the public can gain access 10 to litigation documents and information produced during discovery unless the party opposing 11 disclosure shows “good cause” why a protective order is necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 12 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 13 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 14 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable, necessary uses 15 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 16 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 17 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 18 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 19 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 20 of the public record of this case. 21 Particularized Need for Protection: 22 Pursuant to Local Rule141.1(c)(2), Defendants assert that there exists a specific, 23 particularized need for protection as to the information covered by this stipulated protective order. 24 Defendants represented to the Court and Plaintiff that the materials designated to be covered by 25 this stipulated protective order are limited solely to those which would qualify for protection under 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and does not include information designated on a blanket 27 or indiscriminate basis. See, e.g., In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 1 Showing of Need for a Protective Order: 2 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), protection afforded by this stipulated protective order 3 is for the convenience of Defendants and the Court. Defendants seek to avoid litigation and 4 expenditure of resources concerning a potential motion for protective order pursuant to Federal 5 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The entry of this stipulated protective order may prevent the parties 6 and the Court from conducting the usual document-by-document analysis necessary to obtain 7 protection, in favor of a procedure whereby presumptive protection is afforded based on 8 Defendants’ good faith representations of the need for protection. See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett 9 Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986) (“[T]he burden of justifying the confidentiality of 10 each and every document sought to be covered by a protective order remains on the party seeking 11 the protective order; any other conclusion would turn Rule 26(c) on its head.”). As a result, 12 production may be made with this stipulated protective order in place and, if necessary, it will 13 permit discrete and narrowed challenges to documents designated for protection. 14 B. Statement Pursuant to L.R. 141.1 15 In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 141.1, the parties state as follows: 16 (1) L.R. 141.1(c)(1): The information eligible for a protective order in this case is: 17 a.

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

Related

In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or.
661 F.3d 417 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
785 F.2d 1108 (Third Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James Copeland v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-copeland-v-amazoncom-inc-amazoncom-services-llc-and-does-1-caed-2025.