Jane Doe v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 1, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-04895
StatusUnknown

This text of Jane Doe v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (Jane Doe v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc.) 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
Jane Doe v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 JANE DOE (M.S.H.), Case No. 2:24-CV-04895-SVW-MARx 6 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATION FOR 7 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 8 WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC, WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, 9 INC. and PALMDALE MOTEL 10 MANAGEMENT, INC. 11 Defendants. 12 x 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its inherent 2 authority, the Court hereby orders the entry of the following Protective Order in this 3 matter. 4 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 5 Discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of confidential, 6 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 7 and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. 8 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 9 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 10 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 11 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 12 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 13 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 This action is likely to involve sensitive private information, valuable 15 commercial, and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 16 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 17 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 18 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 19 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential commercial or personal 20 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 21 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 22 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 23 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 24 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 25 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 26 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 27 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 1 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 2 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 3 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 4 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is 5 good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 6 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 7 The parties further acknowledge, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 8 entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth 9 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 10 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 11 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in 12 civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to 13 support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 14 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 15 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 16 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific 17 showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 18 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material (as defined below) that 19 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 20 Discovery Material (as defined below) does not—without the submission of competent 21 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 22 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 24 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 25 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 26 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 27 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, 1 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 2 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 3 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 4 declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 6 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 7 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 8 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 9 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 10 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 4. DEFINITIONS 12 A. “Action” means Jane Doe (M.S.H.) v. WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, 13 LLC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04895, presently pending in the Central District of 14 California, Western Division. 15 B. “Party” means any party named in this Action. 16 C. “Non-Party” means any natural person, partnership, corporation, 17 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party in this Action. 18 D. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 19 of information or items under this Order. 20 E. “Plaintiff’s Identity” means: (i) names and aliases used by Plaintiff at any 21 time; (ii) Plaintiff’s date of birth; (iii) Plaintiff’s social security number; (iv) Plaintiff’s 22 current and prior residential addresses; (v) Plaintiff’s current and prior phone numbers 23 and active and inactive social media or online user account names; (vi) Plaintiff’s 24 likeness; and (vii) the names of Plaintiff’s biological or adoptive parents, and biological 25 siblings. Any document containing Plaintiff’s Identity is subject to this Protective 26 Order unless the information constituting Plaintiff’s Identity is redacted from the 27 document. 1 F. “Confidential Information” means Discovery Material (regardless of how 2 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that contain: (i) sensitive 3 personal identifying or financial information, including but not limited to, dates of 4 birth, social security numbers, phone numbers, employment histories, or credit card 5 information; (ii) information that relates to a person’s business operations, processes, 6 trade secret or proprietary information, and/or technical and development information, 7 the disclosure of which is likely to harm that person’s competitive position; and (iii) 8 any material prohibited from disclosure by statute or Court Order but is nonetheless 9 discoverable. “Confidential Information” does not include “Plaintiff’s Identity” which 10 is separately addressed herein. 11 G.

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)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jane Doe v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-doe-v-wyndham-hotels-and-resorts-inc-cacd-2025.