Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 8, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-03028·Unknown

Opinion

FLOR JIMENEZ, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER V. (ECF No. 32) HYATT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 32), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See L.-R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following 90 clarification. The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain 92 jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2 94 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. 37 Dated: April 7, 2025 C (i s 4, jime3028.23 CHI SOO KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Nathan D. Chapman (SBN 338735) nchapman@kcozlaw.com Jonathan Marvisi (SBN 319170) jmarvisi@kcozlaw.com 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225 Telephone: (404) 400-7300 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333

Attorneys for Defendant Hyatt Corporation

[Additional counsel listed on next page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and on Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK

behalf of all others similarly situated, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER

vs. Compl. Filed: Dec. 28, 2023 HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant. Thiago M. Coelho (SBN 324715) thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com Lauren Lendzion (SBN 239184) lauren.lendzion@wilshirelawfirm.com Jennifer M. Leinbach (SBN 281404) jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com Jesenia A. Martinez (SBN 316969) jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com Jesse S. Chen (SBN 336294) jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com N. Nima Shamtoub (SBN 343853) nima.shamtoub@wilshirelawfirm.com 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class Plaintiff Flor Jimenez and Defendant Hyatt Corporation agree to and submit this Stipulated Protective Order ("Order") and respectfully request that the Court approve and issue the Order. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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 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. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. This Protective Order is necessary to protect confidential records relating to Plaintiff, the putative class members, and Defendant as described below in Section 2. Due to potential third parties being involved that may gain access to Plaintiff’s personal information, and/or Defendant’s proprietary business records through the course of litigation, a protective order is necessary. The Parties request a protective order as third parties that might be involved in this litigation would not be subject to any private agreement between the Parties and the only means to prevent third parties from unauthorized disclosure of private, confidential, and proprietary records is through this Court issuing a protective order. 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 is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 "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/or applicable federal privileges. The Parties seek to protect confidential personal information relating to Plaintiff or the putative class members, , and other records that contain personal information relating to Plaintiff or the putative class members (e.g., Social Security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, drivers’ licenses, and other private identifiers). The Parties also seek to protect Defendant’s business and proprietary records that are not readily known to the public. Specifically, this action is likely to involve trade secrets related to records of website development, maintenance, operation, and improvements, internet archives, system documentation, software, engineering information, vendor information, information regarding business relationships with third parties, and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 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. Public disclosure of this confidential information could cause significant harm to both parties: for Defendant, revealing proprietary methods and technical implementations to competitors could result in competitive disadvantage; for Plaintiff and putative class members, disclosure of sensitive personal information could result in privacy violations and potential identity theft risks. Both Parties have legitimate interests in ensuring such information remains confidential during litigation. 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as "CONFIDENTIAL." 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as an Expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.8 Non

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

Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp. (Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.