Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedApril 8, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-03028
StatusUnknown

This text of Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp. (Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || FLOR JIMENEZ, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 V. (ECF No. 32) 14 || HYATT CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 18 || 32), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See 19 || L.-R. 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following 90 || clarification. 21 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. 23 141.1(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 25 || jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the 26 || 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 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 Nathan D. Chapman (SBN 338735) 2 nchapman@kcozlaw.com Jonathan Marvisi (SBN 319170) 3 jmarvisi@kcozlaw.com 4 KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225 5 Telephone: (404) 400-7300 6 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333

7 Attorneys for Defendant 8 Hyatt Corporation

9 [Additional counsel listed on next page] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

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

14 behalf of all others similarly situated, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 15 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER

16 vs. Compl. Filed: Dec. 28, 2023 17 HYATT CORPORATION, a 18 Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 19 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Thiago M. Coelho (SBN 324715) 2 thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com Lauren Lendzion (SBN 239184) 3 lauren.lendzion@wilshirelawfirm.com 4 Jennifer M. Leinbach (SBN 281404) jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com 5 Jesenia A. Martinez (SBN 316969) 6 jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com Jesse S. Chen (SBN 336294) 7 jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com 8 N. Nima Shamtoub (SBN 343853) nima.shamtoub@wilshirelawfirm.com 9 WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 10 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90010 11 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 12 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989

13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 and Proposed Class 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 Plaintiff Flor Jimenez and Defendant Hyatt Corporation agree to and submit 3 this Stipulated Protective Order ("Order") and respectfully request that the Court 4 approve and issue the Order. 5 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 6 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production 7 of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 8 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 9 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 10 to enter the following Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 11 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 12 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 13 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 14 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 15 that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil 16 Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that 17 will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under 18 seal. 19 This Protective Order is necessary to protect confidential records relating to 20 Plaintiff, the putative class members, and Defendant as described below in Section 2. 21 Due to potential third parties being involved that may gain access to Plaintiff’s 22 personal information, and/or Defendant’s proprietary business records through the 23 course of litigation, a protective order is necessary. The Parties request a protective 24 order as third parties that might be involved in this litigation would not be subject to 25 any private agreement between the Parties and the only means to prevent third parties 26 from unauthorized disclosure of private, confidential, and proprietary records is 27 through this Court issuing a protective order. 28 1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 3 protect information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 5 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 6 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 7 matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as 8 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 9 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is 10 good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 13 of information or items under this Order. 14 2.2 "CONFIDENTIAL" Information or Items: information (regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 16 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and/or applicable federal privileges. The 17 Parties seek to protect confidential personal information relating to Plaintiff or the 18 putative class members, , and other records that contain personal information relating 19 to Plaintiff or the putative class members (e.g., Social Security numbers, home 20 addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, drivers’ licenses, and other private 21 identifiers). The Parties also seek to protect Defendant’s business and proprietary 22 records that are not readily known to the public. Specifically, this action is likely to 23 involve trade secrets related to records of website development, maintenance, 24 operation, and improvements, internet archives, system documentation, software, 25 engineering information, vendor information, information regarding business 26 relationships with third parties, and other valuable research, development, 27 commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special 28 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution 1 of this action is warranted. Public disclosure of this confidential information could 2 cause significant harm to both parties: for Defendant, revealing proprietary methods 3 and technical implementations to competitors could result in competitive 4 disadvantage; for Plaintiff and putative class members, disclosure of sensitive 5 personal information could result in privacy violations and potential identity theft 6 risks. Both Parties have legitimate interests in ensuring such information remains 7 confidential during litigation. 8 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House 9 Counsel (as well as their support staff).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-hyatt-corp-caed-2025.