Jean Pool v. Walmart Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 14, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-06584
StatusUnknown

This text of Jean Pool v. Walmart Inc. (Jean Pool v. Walmart 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
Jean Pool v. Walmart Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 Bron E. D’Angelo, Esq. (SBN 246819) Sean N. Costa, Esq. (SBN 347439) 2 BURGER | MEYER LLP 999 Corporate Drive, Suite 220 3 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 Telephone: (949) 427-1888 4 Facsimile: (949) 427-1889 Email: bdangelo@burgermeyer.com 5 scosta@burgermeyer.com

6 Attorneys for Defendant WALMART INC. 7 8

9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

13 JEAN POOL, an individual, Case No: 2:23-cv-06584-SPG-MRW Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett 14 Plaintiff, Crtrm: 5C

15 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 16 WALMART INC., a Delaware ORDER corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, 17 Inclusive, Action Filed: February 16, 2023

18 Defendant.

19 20 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 The following parties, JEAN POOL (“Plaintiff”) and WALMART INC. 22 (“Walmart”), by their undersigned counsel, have and hereby stipulate and agree to 23 entry of the following Stipulated Protective Order and to abide by the following 24 terms: 25 WHEREAS, the Parties have propounded or will propound certain discovery 26 requests and initial disclosures including information which either Party considers to 27 be proprietary, confidential business records and/or trade secrets, or sensitive 1 WHEREAS, the Parties have expressed a willingness to provide the 2 confidential documents and information which would be necessarily disclosed in 3 complying with these discovery requests and initial disclosures, provided that the 4 Court enter an appropriate protective order; and 5 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 6 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 7 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 8 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles; 9 and 10 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to this; 11 The following procedures shall govern the production, use and disposal of the 12 confidential information: 13 1.1 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve trade secrets and 14 other valuable commercial, financial, technical, security, and/or proprietary 15 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 16 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 17 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 18 business information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 19 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 20 parties), information generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 21 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, 22 case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 23 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidential discovery materials, to 24 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 25 that the Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 26 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 27 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 1 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 2 without good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 3 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public records of 4 this case. 5 1.2 Acknowledgement of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The Parties 6 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 9.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective 7 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 8 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 9 be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 10 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 11 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 12 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 13 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 14 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 15 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 16 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 17 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 18 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The Parties’ mere designation 19 of Disclosure or Discovery Materials as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without 20 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 21 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 22 protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 24 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown and the 25 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 26 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 27 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 1 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 2 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 3 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 5 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 6 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 7 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 8 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 9 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 2. SCOPE 11 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 12 confidential material but also (1) any information copied or extracted form the 13 confidential material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or complications of the 14 confidential material, and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by 15 Parties or their Counsels that might reveal the confidential material. 16 Any use of the confidential material at trial shall be governed by the orders of 17 the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of the confidential material at 18 trial. 19 3. DURATION 20 Once a case proceeds to trial, information that was designated as 21 “confidential” or “produced pursuant to protective order” or in some similar fashion 22 any document for which it claims protection under this Order, becomes public and 23 will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, 24 unless compelling reasons supported in advance of trial. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 25 1180-81 (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in 26 discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents are 27 part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this Protective Order do not extend 1 4. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 2 4.1 Designation of Confidential Documents and Information. The 3 Responding Party shall mark as “confidential” or “produced pursuant to protective 4 order” or in some similar fashion any document for which it claims protection under 5 this Order.

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)
People v. Koy Leng
83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433 (California Court of Appeal, 1999)
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)
Jean Pool v. Walmart Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jean-pool-v-walmart-inc-cacd-2023.