Jennifer Stark v. Shein Distribution Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 23, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-06016·Unknown

Opinion

se 2:22-cv-06016-JAK-AFM Document 22 Filed 03/23/23 Page1of18 Page ID #:19 JENNIFER STARK, an individual; Case No. 2:22—cv—06016 JAK (AFMx) Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER! SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10 inclusive. Defendants. Hi This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon’s Procedures. The 97 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation is based on the model order provided under Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian’s ! Procedures.

-|-

se 2:22-cv-06016-JAK-AFM Document 22 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2of18 Page ID #:20

A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this \| Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action ts likely to involve customer and pricing lists and valuable development, commercial, financial, and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than } prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, other confidential development and commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public or which may be protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information 1s justified in this matter. It is the intent of the

2.

se 2:22-cv-06016-JAK-AFM Document 22 Filed 03/23/23 Page3of18 Page ID #:20

parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Jnc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be

3.

se 2:22-cv-06016-JAK-AFM Document 22 Filed 03/23/23 Page 4of18 Page ID #:20

protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. {2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL —- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items, the disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a ! substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.

4.

se 2:22-cv-06016-JAK-AFM Document 22 Filed 03/23/23 Page5of18 Page ID #:20

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

Jennifer Stark v. Shein Distribution Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Jennifer Stark v. Shein Distribution Corporation (Jennifer Stark v. Shein Distribution Corporation) — 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)