Jesson Calloway v. Richman Property Services, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 24, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-04232
StatusUnknown

This text of Jesson Calloway v. Richman Property Services, Inc. (Jesson Calloway v. Richman Property Services, 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
Jesson Calloway v. Richman Property Services, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4

5 JESSON CALLOWAY, Case No. 2:24-cv-04232-ODW- 6 JOSEPH GARCIA, SSC ANTOINETTE SPOLIANSKY, 7 ERIC LATTIMORE, SPENCER Hon. Stephanie S. Christensen 8 PASKACH, SAMBIDHAN

KHANIYA, and UPASANA 9 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE PANDEY, ORDER1 10 Plaintiff(s), 11 v. DISCOVERY MATTER 12 RICHMAN PROPERTY 13 SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 14 through 10, 15 Defendant(s).

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action may 3 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 4 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 5 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 6 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 7 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 8 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 9 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 10 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 11 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 12 legal principles. 13 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 14 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing 15 lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 16 technical and proprietary information for which special protection from 17 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of 18 this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 19 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 20 financial information, information regarding confidential business 21 22 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 23 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 24 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 25 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 26 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 27 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 1 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 2 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 3 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 4 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 5 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 6 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 7 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 8 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 9 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 10 not be part of the public record of this case. 11 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 12 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 13 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 14 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 15 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 16 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 17 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 18 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 19 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 20 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 21 22 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 23 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 24 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 25 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 26 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 27 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 1 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 2 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 3 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 4 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 5 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 6 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 7 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 8 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 9 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 10 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 11 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 12 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 13 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 14 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 15 seal must be provided by declaration. 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 17 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 18 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 19 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 20 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 21 22 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 23 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 24 2. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1 Action: Calloway et al. v. Richman Property Services, Inc., 26 C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:24-cv-04232-ODW-SSC and Completo et al. v. 27 Richman Property Services, Inc., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:24-cv-04233-ODW- 1 SSC. The parties further agree that this Stipulated Protective Order will 2 also apply to additional cases that Plaintiffs’ counsel has or will file 3 against Defendant relating to ICRAA. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 5 designation of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 7 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 8 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 9 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 11 well as their support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 13 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 14 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 16 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 17 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 18 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 19 responses to discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in 21 22 a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 23 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 25 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment 26 herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, 27 remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for 1 applicable law. 2 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to 3 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)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Ramírez v. Arlequín
447 F.3d 19 (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)
Jesson Calloway v. Richman Property Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesson-calloway-v-richman-property-services-inc-cacd-2024.