Jason Deck v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 19, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-04247
StatusUnknown

This text of Jason Deck v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. (Jason Deck v. AvalonBay Communities, 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
Jason Deck v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 Michael S. Kun (SBN 208684) Kevin D. Sullivan (SBN 270343) 2 Chelsea Hadaway (SBN 295592) 3 EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 5 Phone: 310-556-8861 | Fax: 310-553-2165 mkun@ebglaw.com; ksullivan@ebglaw.com 6 chadaway@ebglaw.com; cemail@ebglaw.com 7 Attorneys for Defendant 8 AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC. 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 JASON DECK, Case No.: 2:22-cv-04247-MEMF-AFM 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 ORDER 15 v.

16 AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC. 17 and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,

18 Defendant. 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 1 - 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve employment records of third-parties, including 13 contact information, personnel and pay records, trade secrets, customer and pricing 14 lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 15 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure 16 and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 17 Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 18 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 19 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 20 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 21 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 22 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 23 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 24 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 25 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 26 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 27 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 28 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order - 2 - 1 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 2 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 3 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 4 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 5 of the public record of this case. 6 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 7 SEAL 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 10 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 11 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 12 to file material under seal. 13 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 14 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 15 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 16 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 17 Corp,, 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 18 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 19 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 20 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 21 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 22 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 23 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 24 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 25 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 27 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 28 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. - 3 - 1 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass ‘n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 2 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 3 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 4 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 5 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 6 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 8 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 9 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 10 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 11 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 12 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, the parties recognize that the 14 contact information and employment records for some putative class members may 15 be produced at some point during the pendency of this litigation. None of the 16 contact information or employment records of putative class members shall be used 17 for any purpose outside of this litigation, and will not be disseminated to any third 18 party under any circumstances, except where agreed to in writing by counsel for 19 both parties – e.g., to a third-party administrator for the dissemination of a privacy 20 opt-out notice to putative class members pursuant to Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. 21 v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 556–57 (2007) – or in accordance with the 22 procedures set forth in this Order for the disclosure of documents and information 23 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” to authorized persons. 24 2. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1. Action: shall mean the above entitled case: Jason Deck v. AvalonBay 26 Communities, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04247-MEMF-AFM. 27 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 28 designation of information or items under this Order. - 4 - 1 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 2 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 3 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 4 the Good Cause Statement. 5 2.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 6 their support staff). 7 2.5.

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)
Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court
57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 197 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jason Deck v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-deck-v-avalonbay-communities-inc-cacd-2023.