Jeremy Lewi v. Comenity Capital Bank

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 14, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02118
StatusUnknown

This text of Jeremy Lewi v. Comenity Capital Bank (Jeremy Lewi v. Comenity Capital Bank) 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
Jeremy Lewi v. Comenity Capital Bank, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 JEREMY LEWI, Case No. 2:25-cv-02118-AB-SSC 5 Plaintiff(s), 6 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 7 v. ORDER1

8 COMENITY CAPITAL BANK, 9 10 Defendants.

12 13 1. INTRODUCTION 14 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 15 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 16 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 17 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 18 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 19 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 20 21 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 22 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 23 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 24 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 2 legal principles. 3 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, consumer information 5 and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 6 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection 7 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 8 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 9 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 10 confidential business or financial information, information regarding 11 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 12 development, or commercial information (including information 13 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 14 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 15 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 16 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 17 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 18 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 19 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 20 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 21 22 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 23 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 24 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 25 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 26 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 27 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 1 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 2 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 4 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 5 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 8 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 9 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 10 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 12 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 13 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 14 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 15 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 16 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 17 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 18 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 19 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 20 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 21 22 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 24 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 25 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 26 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 27 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 1 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 2 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 3 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 4 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 5 seal must be provided by declaration. 6 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 7 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 8 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 9 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 10 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 11 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 12 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13

14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: The above-captioned matter styled as Jeremy Lewi v. 16 Comenity Capital Bank, U.S District Court for the Central District of 17 18 California, Case No. 2:25-cv-02118-AB-SSC. 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 20 designation of information or items under this Order. 21 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 22 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 23 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 25 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 26 well as their support staff). 27 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 1 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 2 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 4 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 5 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 6 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 7 responses to discovery in this matter. 8 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in 9 a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 10 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 11 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 12 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment 13 herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, 14 remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for 15 filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 16 applicable law. 17 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to 18 this Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of 19 Record or any other outside counsel. 20 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 21 22 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Jeremy Lewi v. Comenity Capital Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremy-lewi-v-comenity-capital-bank-cacd-2025.