Jimmie J Wright, Jr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 3, 2019
Docket2:19-cv-05985
StatusUnknown

This text of Jimmie J Wright, Jr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (Jimmie J Wright, Jr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company) 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
Jimmie J Wright, Jr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JIMMIE J. WRIGHT, JR., an 11 individual Case No. CV 19-5985 FMO (GJSx)

12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 v. ORDER

14 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, 15 et al.,

16 Defendant.

17 18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 21 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 22 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 23 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 24 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 25 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 26 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 27 under the applicable legal principles. 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve personnel records, employment information, 3 and healthcare and medical records, including protected health information covered 4 by HIPAA, for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 5 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such information may 6 consist of, among other things, leave and disability accommodation information and 7 payroll information. Federal courts have recognized the privacy protection accorded 8 to a person’s personnel records and employment information under Article 1, 9 Section 1 of the California Constitution. See, e.g., Bickley v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 10 No. C 08–5806 JSW (JL), 2011 WL 1344195, at *2 (N.D.Cal.2011) (unpublished) 11 (collecting cases and stating that “[a]n employee's personnel records and 12 employment information are protected by the constitutional right to privacy”); 13 Official Unsecured Creditors Comm. of Media Vision Tech., Inc. v. Jain, 215 F.R.D. 14 587, 590 (N.D.Cal.2003). Courts have also found good cause to issue a protective 15 order when medical information may be subject to disclosure. See, e.g., Tenney v. 16 Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 817CV00387CJCKESX, 2017 WL 8186684, at *4 (C.D. 17 Cal. Dec. 29, 2017). 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 19 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 20 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 21 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 22 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 23 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 24 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 25 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 26 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 27 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 4 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 5 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 6 to file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 10 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 12 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 13 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 14 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 15 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 16 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 17 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 18 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 19 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 22 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 23 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 24 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 25 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 26 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 27 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 2 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 3 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 4 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 5 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 6 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 2. DEFINITIONS 8 2.1 Action: the above-captioned lawsuit, i.e., Jimmie Wright Jr. v. Union 9 Pacific Railroad Company et al., Case No. CV 19-5985 FMO (GJSx) (C.D. Cal.). 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 11 designation of information or items under this Order. 12 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 13 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 14 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 15 the Good Cause Statement. 16 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 17 their support staff). 18 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 19 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 20 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 22 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 23 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 24 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 26 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 27 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 2 counsel. 3 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 4 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)
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)
Smith v. Koplan
215 F.R.D. 11 (District of Columbia, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jimmie J Wright, Jr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmie-j-wright-jr-v-union-pacific-railroad-company-cacd-2019.