James Macvoy v. Lowes Home Centers LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 20, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-02417·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO Document 27 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:242

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JAMES MCAVOY, JOANNA Case No.: 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO 10 MCAVOY [Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.: 22AVCV00034] 11 Plaintiffs, PROPOSED ORDER RE: JOINT 12 v. MOTION FOR THE ENTRY OF A

13 LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.; and PROTECTIVE ORDER1 DOES 1-100, inclusive 14 Defendants. [Assigned to Hon. Stephen V. Wilson, 15 District Judge; Hon. Rozella A. Oliver, Magistrate Judge] 16

17 Complaint Filed: January 19, 2022

18 19 The Court having read the parties’ Joint Motion for the Entry of a Protective 20 Order, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby enters the following protective 21 order: 22 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 25 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 26 27

28 1 This Joint Motion for Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. - 1 - ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR THE ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER McAvoy v. Lowe’s Companies Inc., et al.; Case No.: 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO Case 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO Document 27 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:243

1 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 2 following Joint Motion for Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 3 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 4 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 5 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 6 legal principles. 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(c)(1) states in pertinent part, that the 9 Court, upon a showing of good cause may “issue an order to protect a party from 10 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 26(c)(1). In the instant matter, Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC’s Confidential 12 Documents contain proprietary and confidential trade secret information relating to 13 Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC’s business practices and its safety protocol. 14 Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC. (“Defendant” or “Lowe’s”) derives 15 independent economic value from maintaining the confidentiality of the policies and 16 procedures set forth in these Confidential Documents. 17 Defendant is a retailer in the home improvement industry and has conducted 18 business in California since 1998. The home improvement retail industry is very 19 competitive. As a result of years of investing time and money in research and 20 investigation, Defendant developed the policies contained in the Confidential 21 Documents for the purposes of maintaining the security and accessibility of its 22 merchandise, providing quality customer service, and ensuring the safety of its 23 employees and customers. These policies and procedures, as memorialized in the 24 Confidential Documents, were created and generated by Lowe’s for Lowe’s, and are 25 used for the purposes of maintaining safety at its stores and creating efficient and 26 organized work environments for its employees. As a result, Defendant is able to 27 minimize the waste of any resources, which is a key factor in generating profitability 28 for its business. - 2 - ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR THE ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER McAvoy v. Lowe’s Companies Inc., et al.; Case No.: 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO Case 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO Document 27 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:244

1 Defendant derives economic value from maintaining the secrecy of its 2 Confidential Documents. If disclosed to the public, the trade secret information 3 contained in Defendant’s Confidential Documents would reveal Defendant’s internal 4 operations and could potentially be used by competitors as a means to compete for its 5 customers, interfere with its business plans and thereby gain unfair business 6 advantages. If Defendant’s safety protocol were revealed to the general public, it 7 would hinder Defendant’s ability to effectively resolve and minimize liability claims, 8 and its goal of protecting its customers and employees from theft and other crimes. 9 Unrestricted or unprotected disclosure of such information would result in prejudice 10 or harm to Defendant by revealing Lowe’s competitive confidential information, 11 which has been developed at the expense of Lowe’s and which represents valuable 12 tangible and intangible assets. Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that there 13 is good cause for the entry of this Protective Order. 14 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 15 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 16 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 17 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 18 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 19 material under seal. 20 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 21 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 22 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 23 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 24 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 25 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 26 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 27 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 28 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation - 3 - ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR THE ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER McAvoy v. Lowe’s Companies Inc., et al.; Case No.: 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO Case 2:22-cv-02417-SVW-RAO Document 27 Filed 10/20/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:245

1 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 2 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 3 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 4 constitute good cause. 5 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 6 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 7 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 8 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 9 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 10 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 11 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 12 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 13 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 14 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 15 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted.

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

James Macvoy v. Lowes Home Centers LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

James Macvoy v. Lowes Home Centers LLC (James Macvoy v. Lowes Home Centers LLC) — 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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)